This article titled “Drones can be used by Nato forces in Libya, says Obama” was written by Nick Hopkins, for The Guardian on Thursday 21st April 2011 21.52 UTC

The White House has approved the use of missile-armed Predator drones to help Nato target Colonel Gaddafi’s forces in Libya.

Coalition commanders have been privately urging the Americans to provide the specialist unmanned aircraft, which have become a favoured – if controversial – weapon in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Their ability to hone in on targets using powerful night-vision cameras is considered to be one way of helping rebels in the besieged city of Misrata, where a humanitarian crisis has unfolded in the last week.

The US defence secretary, Robert Gates, said Barack Obama had approved the use of the Predators which are armed with Hellfire missiles, signalling a marked growth in the US contribution to the Nato effort.

Gates told a Pentagon news conference that the Predator was an example of the unique US military capabilities that the president is willing to contribute while other countries enforce a no-fly zone.

General James Cartwright said that the first Predator mission in Libya had been scheduled for Thursday night but was abandoned because of poor weather. The US military plans to maintain two patrols of armed Predators above Libya at any given time, permitting better surveillance – and targeting – of Gaddafi’s forces as they dig into positions next to civilian areas, Cartwright told the same briefing.

The drones are based in the region but typically flown via remote control by pilots in the US. The drones for Libya had not been withdrawn from Afghanistan, Gates and Cartwright said.

Khaled Kayim, Libya’s deputy foreign minister, said the deployment of the drones would result in the deaths of more civilians. He described the move as “undemocratic and illegitimate and I hope they will reverse their decision”.

Liam Fox, the British defence secretary, and Sir David Richards, the chief of the defence staff, are due in Washington next week to discuss the situation in Libya.

The use of Predators is one of the topics to be discussed at the Pentagon talks next Tuesday, as well as other specialist equipment that might be provided by the US.

David Cameron has again insisted that Nato had no intention of deploying ground troops, but that did not mollify Russia. It condemned the sending of military advisers to Libya by the UK and France, saying it exceeded the mandate of UN security council resolution 1973. “We are not happy about the latest events in Libya, which are pulling the international community into a conflict on the ground,” said the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov.”This may have unpredictable consequences,” he added.

But senior Whitehall officials believe the use of drones, also known as UAVs, would not be beyond the remit, or the spirit, of the UN resolution which gave the coalition a mandate to protect civilians. “A UAV with sufficiently high-resolution sensors, were it armed, could fire that weapon in line of sight and still meet the tight rules of engagement,” a Whitehall source said.

“We have been asking if we can get the US to provide that capability for us. It exists – the question is can we get it to be deployed? UAVs would give you speed of response where you see the regime transgressing the UN resolution,” the source said. The US is understood to have the UAVs in the region already.

Gates said Obama continues to be opposed to sending US ground forces into Libya and there were no plans to send US trainers to augment Nato forces already working with rebel forces. “There’s no wiggle room in that,” Gates said.

The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-Moon, urged Gaddafi to “stop killing people”, and estimated that 500,000 Libyans had fled the country. The MoD also sought to counter criticism Nato is not doing enough for Misrata, saying the RAF had hit 58 targets around the city in the past three weeks, including 37 main battle tanks. But officials concede the difficulties of targeting within the city are considerable.

Earlier this week Nato’s commander, Lt Gen Charles Bouchard, described the situation within Misrata as being akin to “a knife fight in a phone booth”. He said Gaddafi forces were hiding on the rooftops of mosques, hospitals and schools, and that they were shielding themselves behind women and children.

The military difficulties were underlined when further details emerged of the death of British photographer Tim Hetherington, who was killed on Wednesday in a mortar attack along with a colleague, Chris Hondras. An Oscar-nominated filmmaker, Hetherington, 41, wrote in his last Twitter post on Tuesday: “In besieged Libyan city of Misrata. Indiscriminate shelling by Gaddafi forces. No sign of Nato.” Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter said Hetherington was “about as perfect a model of a war photographer as you’re going to find these days”.

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

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

This article titled “Revealed: Gaddafi envoy in Britain for secret talks” was written by Peter Beaumont, Nicholas Watt and Severin Carrell, for The Guardian on Thursday 31st March 2011 23.31 UTC

Colonel Gaddafi’s regime has sent one of its most trusted envoys to London for confidential talks with British officials, the Guardian can reveal.

Mohammed Ismail, a senior aide to Gaddafi’s son Saif al-Islam, visited London in recent days, British government sources familiar with the meeting have confirmed. The contacts with Ismail are believed to have been one of a number between Libyan officials and the west in the last fortnight, amid signs that the regime may be looking for an exit strategy.

Disclosure of Ismail’s visit comes in the immediate aftermath of the defection to Britain of Moussa Koussa, Libya’s foreign minister and its former external intelligence head, who has been Britain’s main conduit to the Gaddafi regime since the early 1990s.

A team led by the British ambassador to Libya, Richard Northern, and MI6 officers embarked on a lengthy debriefing of Koussa at a safe house after he flew into Farnborough airport on Wednesday night from Tunisia. Government sources said the questioning would take time because Koussa’s state of mind was “delicate” after he left his family in Libya.

The Foreign Office has declined “to provide a running commentary” on contacts with Ismail or other regime officials. But news of the meeting comes amid mounting speculation that Gaddafi’s sons, foremost among them Saif al-Islam, Saadi and Mutassim, are anxious to talk. “There has been increasing evidence recently that the sons want a way out,” said a western diplomatic source.

Although he has little public profile in Libya or internationally, Ismail is recognised by diplomats as being a key fixer and representative for Saif al-Islam. According to cables published by WikiLeaks, Ismail represented Libya’s government in arms purchase negotiations and as an interlocutor on military and political issues.

“The message that was delivered to him is that Gaddafi has to go, and that there will be accountability for crimes committed at the international criminal court,” a Foreign Office spokesman told the Guardian , declining to elaborate on what else may have been discussed.

Some aides working for Gaddafi’s sons, however, have made it clear that it may be necessary to sideline their father and explore exit strategies to prevent the country descending into anarchy.

One idea the sons have reportedly suggested – which the Guardian has been unable to corroborate – is that Gaddafi give up real power. Mutassim, presently the country’s national security adviser, would become president of an interim national unity government which would include the opposition. It is an idea, however, unlikely to find support among the rebels or the international community who are demanding Gaddafi’s removal.

The revelation that contacts between Britain and a key Gaddafi loyalist had taken place came as David Cameron hailed the defection of Koussa as a sign the regime was crumbling. “It tells a compelling story of the desperation and the fear right at the very top of the crumbling and rotten Gaddafi regime,” he said.

Ministers regard Koussa’s move to abandon his family as a sign of the magnitude of his decision. “Moussa Koussa is very worried about his family,” one source said. “But he did this because he felt it was the best way of bringing down Gaddafi.”

Britain learned that Koussa wanted to defect when he made contact from Tunisia. He had made his way out of Libya in a convoy of cars after announcing he was going on a diplomatic mission to visit the new government in Tunis.

It was also reported that Ali Abdussalam Treki, a senior Libyan diplomat, declined to take up his appointment by Gaddafi as UN ambassador, condemning the “spilling of blood”. Officials were checking reports that Tarek Khalid Ibrahim, the deputy head of mission in London, is also defecting.

The prime minister insisted that no deal had been struck with Koussa and that he would not be offered immunity from prosecution. “Let me be clear, Moussa Koussa is not being granted immunity. There is no deal of that kind,” Cameron said. Within hours of his arrival in Britain, Scottish prosecutors asked to interview Koussa about the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. The Crown Office in Edinburgh has said that it is formally asking for its prosecutors and police detectives to question him.

But government sources indicated that Britain does not believe Koussa was involved. He was at the heart of Britain’s rapprochement with Libya, which started when Tripoli abandoned its support for the IRA in the early 1990s.

He was instrumental in persuading Gaddafi to abandon his weapons of mass destruction programme in 2003. One source said: “Nobody is saying this guy was a saint, because he was a key Gaddafi lieutenant who was kicked out of Britain in 1980 for making threats to kill Libyan dissidents. But this is the guy who persuaded Gaddafi to abandon his WMD programme. He no doubt has useful and interesting things to say about Lockerbie, but it doesn’t seem he said ‘go and do it’.”

However there is unease among Tories about Britain’s involvement in Libya. Underlining those concerns, Boris Johnson, the London mayor, told BBC Question Time that a continued stalemate in Libya could “have terrible consequences”. Johnson said; “I do worry that if we get into a stalemate; and if, frankly, the rebels don’t seem to be making the progress that we would like, we have to be brave, to say to ourselves that our policy is not working, and encourage the Arabs themselves to take leadership in all of this.”

William Hague, the foreign secretary, said he had a sense that Koussa was deeply unhappy with Gaddafi when they spoke last Friday. “One of the things I gathered between the lines in my telephone calls with him, although he of course had to read out the scripts of the regime, was that he was very distressed and dissatisfied by the situation there,” Hague said.

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

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

This article titled “Nato to take control in Libya after US, UK and France reach agreement” was written by Nicholas Watt, Nick Hopkins and Ian Traynor in Brussels, for The Guardian on Wednesday 23rd March 2011 01.42 UTC

Britain, France and the US have agreed that Nato will take over the military command of the no-fly zone over Libya in a move that represents a setback for Nicolas Sarkozy, who had hoped to diminish the role of the alliance.

Barack Obama agreed in separate phone calls with Sarkozy and David Cameron that political oversight would be handed to a separate body made up of members of the coalition, including Arab countries such as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, which are outside Nato.

The agreement, which will have to be put be to all 28 members of Nato, indicates the alliance is on course to resolve one of its most serious disagreements. The alliance had been starting to splinter as it tried to comply with Obama’s demand that Washington be quickly relieved of command of the air campaign.

The Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi criticised the air strikes which he said breached the UN charter and were “by a bunch of fascists”. In a televised address he promised victory over the coalition: “In the short term, we’ll beat them, in the long term, we’ll beat them.”

Sarkozy moved to portray the agreement as a Franco-American success. In a statement, the Élysée Palace said: “The two presidents have come to an agreement on the way to use the command structures of Nato to support the coalition.” But the agreement represents a blow for Sarkozy, who had tried to persuade Britain to set up an Anglo-French command for all military operations in Libya. That idea was strongly resisted by Britain which said Nato was best placed to run the military operations.

Obama, who spoke to Cameron and Sarkozy in separate phone calls during his tour of Latin America, agreed that:

• Nato will assume the day-to-day military command of the no-fly zone, using the alliance’s military structures. The operation could be run by Admiral James Stavridis, the US supreme allied commander in Europe, who works from the Nato’s military headquarters in Mons, Belgium.

• Political oversight will be provided by members of the coalition and not by Nato. Sarkozy will say this shows Nato is not in complete command, as it was in the bombing campaign against Serbian targets during the 1999 Kosovo campaign. In a traditional Nato-led operation, political control would be provided by the North Atlantic Council, the main political decision-making body of the alliance.

The plan will be put to the council on Wednesday, which will hold its third meeting in as many days at ambassadorial level. All 28 members of Nato will have to agree on the proposal. Downing Street adopted a more cautious approach than the Élysée when it confirmed that Cameron and Obama had agreed that Nato should play a key role. A spokesman said: “The prime minister and the president agreed that good progress had been made in Nato on command and control of military operations, that Nato should play a key role in the command structure going forward, and that these arrangements now needed to be finalised.”

Diplomatic sources said progress on the new structures emerged as France and Turkey started to give ground. France softened its stance after Britain and the US agreed that the international coalition would have political oversight but that Nato would have to assume military control. London and Washington were supported by newer members of Nato, such as Romania and the Czech Republic, who said they could only support the campaign if it was run by Nato.

A phone call between Obama and the Turkish prime minister Tayyip Recep Erdogan led to what was described as a more pragmatic approach. “Turkey has become more flexible in the last day or so,” one diplomat said. Turkey, the third largest member of Nato, and which has a predominantly Muslim population, had highlighted tensions within the alliance when it launched a strong attack on France. Sarkozy had tried to reach out to the Muslim world by playing down Nato’s role in Libya.

Egemen Bagis, Turkey’s Europe minister, accused the French president of exploiting Libya for his own electoral needs. Sarkozy has been the biggest opponent of Ankara’s ambitions to join the European Union. “A European leader began his election campaign by organising a meeting that led to a process of air strikes against Libya. He acted before a Nato decision, and his act was based on his subjective evaluation of a UN resolution,” said Bagis.

The agreement came as William Hague, the foreign secretary, declared that the Arab spring is likely to be more significant than 9/11. Hague told the Times CEO Summit Africa: “We are only in the early stages of what is happening in north Africa and the Middle East. It is already set to overtake the 2008 financial crisis and 9/11 as the most important development of the early 21st century, and is likely to bring some degree of political change in all countries in the Arab world.”"This is a historic shift of massive importance, presenting the international community as a whole with an immense opportunity. We believe that the international response to these events must be commensurately generous, bold and ambitious.”

The foreign secretary added that the international action against Libya – and the demands for freedom – meant that Robert Mugabe and other authoritarian leaders in Africa would eventually face justice. Hague said: “Governments that use violence to stop democratic development will not earn themselves respite forever. They will pay an increasingly high price for actions which they can no longer hide from the world with ease, and will find themselves on the wrong side of history. Governments that block the aspirations of their people, that steal or are corrupt, that oppress and torture or that deny freedom of expression and human rights should bear in mind that they will find it increasingly hard to escape the judgment of their own people, or where warranted, the reach of international law. The action we have taken in Libya, authorised by the United Nations Security Council, shows that the international community does take gross violations of human rights extremely seriously.”

The agreement on the military command of the no-fly zone came as key military British figures expressed dismay at No 10′s handling of the conflict, suggesting the prime minister’s office is subverting commanders conducting the operation. Officials resent the way No 10 appeared to undermine General Sir David Richards, the country’s most senior military officer, who rejected ministers’ claims that Gaddafi might be a legitimate target. Sources said that by identifying Gaddafi as a target, Britain laid itself open to the charge that “if you kill him, it was premeditated, and if you don’t, you have failed”.

Additional reporting by Richard Norton-Taylor and Simon Tisdall

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

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

This article titled “Libya resolution: UN security council air strikes vote – as it happened” was written by Richard Adams and David Batty, for guardian.co.uk on Thursday 17th March 2011 22.03 UTC

5.45pm ET / 9.45pm GMT: The UN security council will shortly start its proceedings for a vote on a resolution supporting military action against the Gaddafi regime in Libya. Here’s the Guardian’s latest coverage reporting today’s meeting:

Britain, France and the US, along with several Arab countries, are to join forces to throw a protective ring around the Libyan rebel stronghold of Benghazi as soon as a UN security council vote on military action is authorised, according to security council sources.

We’ll be following the UN security council debate, final vote and reactions here as it happens. With France’s air force said to be ready to fly missions over Libya within hours of a resolution, we’ll be watching what happens in the air and on the ground in Libya, as well as input from the Guardian’s correspondents and other international responses.

A live webcast of the security council meeting can be watched here – and of course we welcome comments below.

5.59pm ET: Security council members are milling about in the chamber – with the big question being, how will the votes go?

The Guardian’s Luke Harding spoke with Germany’s foreign minister Guido Westerwelle, and he sounded hostile:

Westerwelle warned the results of western military intervention were “unpredictable” and could have consequences for freedom movements in the Arab world.

“Your own instinct is to say ‘We have to do something.’ But military intervention is to take part in a civil war that could go on for a long time.

“Germany has a strong friendship with our European partners. But we won’t take part in any military operation and I will not send German troops to Libya.”

From the sound of those comments, Germany is likely to abstain tonight – but will Angela Merkel want Germany to be out of step with the rest of Europe on this?

6.15pm ET: Nine votes are needed tonight for the Libya resolution to pass the security council – the Guardian’s Ewen MacAskill thinks it will be 10 for, with five abstentions:

Voting for the resolution

Permanent members: United States, Britain, France
Non-permanent members:: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal, South Africa

Abstentions

Permanent members: Russia, China
Non-permanent members: Germany, Brazil, India

6.24pm ET: Finally, the meeting is called to order, and the agenda is adopted. In these situations the UN security council appears to be something like a council meeting, all agendas and points of order.

The first speaker to introduce the resoltuion is Alain Juppé, the great survivor of French politics now back as minister of foreign affairs after the resignation of Michèle Alliot-Marie, who famously went on holiday for in Tunisia during the protests there.

Juppé is careful to mention that the idea of a no-fly zone is endorsed by many governments in the region, including the Arab League, and urges the adoption of the resolution.

“We are ready and willing to act together with members, including the Arab members,” Juppé tells the council, concluding:

“Each day, each hour, increases the weight on our shoulders. We must not wait.”

6.32pm ET: No other members wish to speak.

The resolution is being put to the vote now. That’s very quick moving by the security council.

6.33pm ET: Here’s the result: 10 in favour, zero against, five abstentions. So the vote went exactly as predicted. “The resolution 1973/2011 is adopted.,” says the chairman.

Now there are more statements. Lebanon to speak first.

6.36pm ET: Muammar Gaddafi has already made his feelings known, telling the Portuguese TV channel RTP that the UN resolution was an act of “flagrant colonization” for which it had no legal mandate:

This is craziness, madness, arrogance. If the world gets crazy with us we will get crazy too. We will respond. We will make their lives hell because they are making our lives hell. They will never have peace.

There we are: Muammar Gaddafi threatens to “get crazy”.

6.40pm ET: Now the UK’s representative, Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant, is addressing the council:

The Libyan population want the same rights and freedoms that people all across North Africa are demanding.

6.45pm ET: The US is preparing to participate in a no-fly zone in Libya “within a few days” with the help of Arab countries, AP reports:

[Congressional] officials said they expected the effort to enforce a no-fly zone and ground Muammar Gaddafi’s air force could begin within a few days if the UN takes action by day’s end.

They spoke after a briefing for members of the Senate.

One official said Jordan, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates were among possible participants, in a showing designed to demonstrate that the effort to aid anti-Gadhafi rebels had support from other countries in the region.

6.50pm ET: The US’s UN ambassador Susan Rice now speaking to the council: “Today the Security Council has responded to the Libyan people’s cry for help.”

Colonel Gaddafi and those who still stand by him continue to grossly and systematically abuse the most fundamental of the human rights of his people.

6.55pm ET: Blogger Iyad El-Baghdadi – based in Dubai – is watching the scenes of celebration in Benghazi.

7pm ET: Here’s the Guardian’s first take on tonight’s UN security council vote and what it means:

British, French and US military aircraft are preparing to protect the Libyan rebel stronghold of Benghazi after the United Nations security council voted in favour of a no-fly zone and air strikes against Muammar Gaddafi’s forces.

With Gaddafi’s troops closing in on Benghazi, the French prime minister, Francois Fillon, said “time is of the essence” and that France would support military action set to take place within hours.

Jets could take off from French military bases along the Mediterranean coast, about 750 miles from Libya. Several Arab countries would join the operation.

7.05pm ET: There’s some very impressive singing in central Benghazi, accompanied by celebratory gunfire, right now, based on al-Jazeera’s footage.

An al-Jazeera English reporter, Tony Birtley, later says: “I haven’t been hugged by so many people since my daughter’s birthday party.”

7.11pm ET: US enforcement of a no-fly zone in Libya could begin by Sunday or Monday, according to anonymous US officials quoted by AP, and would involve “jet fighters, bombers and surveillance aircraft”.

7.16pm ET: Italy announces it is opening its air force and naval bases in Sicily for operations against Libya – the obvious spot to base US and British jets.

The Berlusconi government may have had relatively warm relations with Libya, but Italy’s Nato obligations gave it little choice but to allow other members to use its bases.

7.20pm ET: So what happens next? A meeting of Nato ministers, for example, but the organisation has already drawn up plans for a no-fly zone so that shouldn’t take very long.

7.25pm ET: The UN resolution just passed by the security council is eight pages long but the key part is point four, “Protection of civilians,” which states:

Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures … to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council

The phrase “take all necessary measures” means this is more than a no-fly zone: it allows air strikes and any military action short of landing troops (“excluding a foreign occupation force of any form”) – such as attacking tanks on the road to Benghazi.

7.31pm ET: Not all Libyans are delighted by the news of the UN’s authorisation of military action. AP has this quote:

In contrast, a dentist in the capital of Tripoli rejected the measure. “You are in fact protecting people carrying weapons against the official forces. This is nonsense,” said Mohammed Salah, 33.

7.35pm ET: Some reaction from British policy makers:

• Foreign secretary William Hague said the UN resolution was necessary “to avoid greater bloodshed and to try to stop what is happening in terms of attacks on civilians”.

This places a responsibility on members of the United Nations and that is a responsibility to which the United Kingdom will now respond.

• Former Conservative defence secretary Malcolm Rifkind, on Newsnight, described the UN vote as “the action the world is waiting for”:

I’m absolutely delighted. Without action of this kind, Benghazi would have been a bloodbath. By the standards of the last 20 years, this is a remarkable vote. This is a tremendous morale booster for Libyans, not just in Benghazi.

7.39pm ET: Full text of the UN resolution is right here.

Here are the key points in the document:

• “the immediate establishment of a cease-fire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians.”

• authorizes UN member states “to take all necessary measures … to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory.”

• establishes a “ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians,” but allows humanitarian flights and flights sanctioned by the UN and the Arab League.

• orders members states to stop any Libyan owned, operated or registered aircraft from taking off, landing or overflying their territory without prior approval from the UN committee monitoring sanctions.

• allows member states “to inspect in their territory, including airports and seaports, and on the high seas, vessels and aircraft bound to or from” Libya if the country has “reasonable grounds” to believe they contain military items or armed mercenaries.

• freezes assets of five financial institutions: Libya’s central bank, the Libyan Investment Authority, the Libyan Foreign Bank, Libyan Africa Investment Portfoilio, and the Libyan National Oil Corporation.

7.45pm ET: A Libyan official from Gaddafi’s government, Khalid Kaim, deputy foreign minister, is addressing journalists in Tripoli, and apologises for waking them up, since it’s 1.30am there.

He begins by thanking the UN security council members who abstained, especially Germany, which seemed to amuse him for some reason.

It’s a string of bland statements, which complains about the “technical details of such a decision” and says the government will need to study the final text before making a response.

Kaim does say that UN security council members needed to be careful about intervening in an internal matter, and accused the resolution of threatening the unity of Libya and that any country arming the rebels was “inviting Libyans to kill each other”.

7.47pm ET: The regime’s press conference in Tripoli is interrupted. “Don’t worry guys, it’s just some demonstrators,” says the deputy foreign minister, explaining that this is a spontaneous show of support for Gaddafi by ordinary Libyans. At 1.30am in a hotel.

In any case, the tone is very different to the earlier comments by Gaddafi today vowing “no mercy” in Benghazi.

7.55pm ET: The Guardian’s UK politics correspondent Nick Watt reports on David Cameron’s change of plans in the wake of tonight’s UN vote:

The prime minister has ripped up his diary for Friday to hold an emergency cabinet on Libya in the morning. He will then make a statement to MPs in the Commons on Friday.

8pm ET: Mohammed Abdel Malek, chairman of Libya Watch based in London, said: “I think that the West can rest assured that they did the right moral thing…. It is a little bit late but it’s not too late.”

He said the west should recognise the transitional national council in Benghazi as the only way to bring about effective action on the ground.

8.08pm ET: The Wall Street Journal reports that Egypt’s military has begun shipping arms over the border to Libyan rebels with Washington’s knowledge, in a well-timed story:

The shipments – mostly small arms such as assault rifles and ammunition – appear to be the first confirmed case of an outside government arming the rebel fighters. Those fighters have been losing ground for days in the face of a steady westward advance by forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi.

Further down:

“We know the Egyptian military council is helping us, but they can’t be so visible,” said Hani Souflakis, a Libyan businessman in Cairo who has been acting as a rebel liaison with the Egyptian government since the uprising began.

“Weapons are getting through,” said Mr Souflakis, who says he has regular contacts with Egyptian officials in Cairo and the rebel leadership in Libya. “Americans have given the green light to the Egyptians to help. The Americans don’t want to be involved in a direct level, but the Egyptians wouldn’t do it if they didn’t get the green light.”

8.16pm ET: British politician Sir Menzies Campbell, a Liberal Democrat member of the foreign affairs committee, told Sky News: “I don’t think there is any appetite for putting troops on the ground.”

Campbell said UK forces were already overstretched, and suggested that the main military action would be “combat air patrols, regular patrolling of airspace” to block air strikes by Gaddafi’s forces.

8.28pm ET: Libyan state television has yet to mention the UN security council vote, according to al-Jazeera.

8.34pm ET: So when will Nato planes be seen over the skies of Libya. Not long, perhaps, according to AP:

In Britain, a lawmaker with knowledge of defense matters confirmed that British forces were on stand by for air strikes and could be mobilised as soon as Thursday night. The lawmaker declined to be named because the Defense Ministry has not issued official confirmation.

French Prime Minister Francois Fillon told France-2 Television that if the resolution was approved France would support military action against Gaddafi within a matter of hours.

8.41pm ET: My colleague David Batty in London looks at the front page headlines of the British national newspapers on Friday:

• The Guardian: Britain, France and US line up for air strikes against Gaddafi

• The Sun: War on Gaddafi

• Financial Times: US joins push for UN action on Libya

• The Times: US set to lead allied attack on Gaddafi

• The Independent: Gaddafi: now it’s a fight to the death

8.46pm ET: Canada, in an atypical display of aggression, has quickly pledged six CF-18 fighter jets to help impose the no-fly zone in Libya.

8.49pm ET: Republican Senator John McCain applauds the Obama administration’s decision to support military action in Libya.

8.55pm ET: All the talk of warplanes being in the skies of Libya tonight appears to be somewhat overheated – see the 8.34pm post – and being disputed by US and Nato sources.

9.15pm ET: The official Libyan state news agency JANA has issued a response to the UN vote, with dire warnings of military reprisals:

Any foreign military act against Libya will expose all air and maritime traffic in the Mediterranean Sea to danger and civilian and military facilities will become targets of Libya’s counter attack. The Mediterranean basin will face danger not just in the short term, but also in the long term.

9.31pm ET: President Obama held a conference call this evening with David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy to agree on enforcement of the UN resolution.

The trio agreed to co-ordinate closely on the next steps, and to continue working with Arab and other international partners to ensure the enforcement of the UN resolutions.

9.45pm ET: We’re wrapping up our live coverage of the UN vote and its consequences – but the Guardian’s coverage will continue later on Friday morning.

Here is a round-up of the developments tonight at the UN and in Libya:

• The UN security council approved Libya resolution by a 10-5 vote. Permanent council members China and Russia both abstained along with Germany, while the US, Britain, Lebanon and France voted in favour of military action

• Resolution 1973/2011 allows states wide latitude to take “all necessary measures” – short of an occupation force – to protect civilians within in Libya

• News of the UN decision was greeted with scenes of jubilation on the streets of Benghazi, amid singing and gunfire. The Gaddafi regime issued a statement threatening “danger not just in the short term, but also in the long term” for foreign military acts

• David Cameron calls an emergency cabinet meeting for Friday morning and plans on making a statement to parliament

• There are reports that Egypt’s military is allowing a flow of arms to the Libyan rebels, with the tacit approval of the US

• Barack Obama, Nicolas Sarkozy and Cameron held a conference call after the vote, and agreed to co-ordinate enforcing the UN resolution

• Jordan, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates may supply forces to help police the no-fly measure

The Guardian’s coverage of events in Libya continues here.

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

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

This article titled “UN paves way for no-fly zone as Nato steps up surveillance of Libya” was written by Julian Borger, Richard Norton-Taylor and Nicholas Watt, for The Guardian on Wednesday 9th March 2011 01.36 UTC

David Cameron and Barack Obama agreed to draw up “the full spectrum” of military responses to the crisis in Libya as Britain won important US support for a possible no-fly zone over the country.

The prime minister, who has faced accusations that he was isolated over a no-fly zone, agreed in a telephone call with the president that a major international operation will swing into action if Muammar Gaddafi refuses to leave office.

Cameron outlined his conversation with Obama when he appeared on The One Show on BBC1 at 7pm. “We have got to prepare for what we might have to do if he [Gaddafi] goes on brutalising his own people,” he said.

“I had a phone call with President Obama this afternoon to talk about the planning we have to do in case this continues and in case he does terrible things to his own people. I don’t think we can stand aside and let that happen.”

A Downing Street spokesman said the president and the prime minister had had a detailed conversation about military and diplomatic options if Gaddafi ignores international calls to stand down.

The spokesman said: “The prime minister and the president agreed to press forward with planning, including at NATO, on the full spectrum of possible responses, including surveillance, humanitarian assistance, enforcement of the arms embargo, and a no fly zone. They committed to close co-ordination on next steps.”

The strong support from the White House for detailed military planning will come as a relief to Cameron, who has faced criticism for a bumbling response to the Libyan crisis. Last week Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, criticised “loose talk” over a no-fly zone.

Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, last night cautioned that a no-fly zone would need clear approval by the UN security council and warned of the dangers if the west took charge of any military operation.

Clinton told Sky News: “We think it’s important that the United Nations make this decision, not the United States, and so far the United Nations has not done that.

“I think it’s very important that this not be a US-led effort, because this comes from the people of Libya themselves, this doesn’t come from the outside, this doesn’t come from, you know, some western power, or some Gulf country saying, ‘this is what you should do, this is how you should live’.”

Nato has launched 24-hour air and sea surveillance of Libya as a possible precursor to a no-fly zone, amid signs of growing Arab support for western military intervention to stop the bombing of civilians.

British and French diplomats at the UN headquarters in New York have completed a draft resolution authorising the creation of a no-fly zone which could be put before the security council within hours if aerial bombing by pro-Gaddafi forces causes mass civilian casualties.

A western diplomat said: “It would require a clear trigger for a resolution to go forward.” In such an event, there would be pressure on Russia and China not to use their vetoes. Western officials believe support for a no-fly zone from the Islamic world, as well as from the Libyan opposition and diplomats at the UN, would put Moscow and Beijing on the defensive.

The Gulf Co-operation Council, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference and the secretary general of the Arab League have called for the protection of Libyan civilians while rejecting the intervention of western ground troops. Turkey, the most reluctant Nato member state, has relaxed its opposition and allowed contingency planning to go ahead.

The decision to step up air and sea monitoring was taken on Monday by the North Atlantic Council, a meeting of ambassadors from Nato’s 28 member states.

Early-warning Awacs aircraft already patrolling the Mediterranean region as part of a longstanding Nato counter-terrorist operation, Active Endeavour, will maintain a 24-hour air presence instead of just 10, and focus on the Libyan coast. Nato naval vessels taking part in Active Endeavour, meant to stop the infiltration of terrorists into southern Europe, are being sent to the Libyan coast with the aims of increasing surveillance and enforcing the arms embargo.

Two US marine assault ships, the USS Kearsarge and the USS Ponce, both with Harrier jump-jets aboard, are also approaching the Libyan coast.

Officials said the intelligence gained from the air and sea monitoring would inform the debate within Nato. They said some members were far from convinced on the need for Nato involvement in an Arab civil conflict, and there was no appetite for action without a UN mandate.

Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, is a sceptic on the effectiveness of a no-fly zone and is expected to argue for a cautious approach at the Nato meeting on Thursday. His scepticism reflects reluctance on the part of the armed service chiefs.

Gates has argued that any no-fly zone would involve preliminary bombing of Libyan air defences. Douglas Barrie, an aerospace analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, has denied this.

“There’s no hard-and-fast rule in the establishment of a no-fly zone that you have to go in and take out all of your opponents air defences,” Barrie said. “You say ‘this is a no-fly zone and we don’t want you to fly, and if you adhere to that everything is going to be fine, but if you fire at us then we will take retaliatory action’.”

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

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

This article titled “Libya no-fly zone call by France fails to get David Cameron’s backing” was written by Nicholas Watt in Doha and Patrick Wintour, for The Guardian on Wednesday 23rd February 2011 20.55 UTC

Nicolas Sarkozy is leading the calls for a Nato-imposed no-fly zone to be enforced over Libya to “prevent the use of that country’s warplanes against [its] population”.

Sarkozy, the current president of the G8 and G20 economic forums, has also called for the European Union to impose sanctions against Libya and suggested that the assets of the family of the Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, should be frozen.

William Hague, the British foreign secretary, did not join the calls for a no-fly zone, but David Cameron held out the prospect of imposing sanctions on Libya if Gaddafi continued to respond to the protests with violence.

The government is wary of antagonising the Libyan leadership while it attempts to repatriate British citizens.

In an interview with al-Jazeera television in Doha, the prime minister said: “Sanctions are always an option for the future if what we are seeing in Libya continues. Of course, if Libya continues down this path, there will be a very strong argument [for sanctions].”

Cameron’s remarks appeared to be a hardening of his position from earlier in the day, when he sidestepped questions about whether he would endorse the French president’s call for sanctions.

But the prime minister moved to play down the prospect of military action against Libya, saying: “I do not think we are at that stage yet. We are at the stage of condemning the actions Colonel Gaddafi has taken against his own people.”

It is likely the British attitude towards a no-fly zone will toughen if and when its citizens are evacuated.

The government is also concerned that Russia and China could veto a no-fly zone at the United Nations security council, leaving the international community weakened.

Demands for a ban on flights over Libya have been made by Ibrahim al-Dabashi, the country’s deputy ambassador to the UN, who is among diplomats who have abandoned Gaddafi.

He said the measure would prevent mercenaries, weapons and other supplies from reaching Gaddafi and his security forces. There have also been fears that Gaddafi could resort to bombing his own people.

Hague said he was cancelling a planned trip to Washington to handle the crisis from London, adding that it would be difficult to get a security council resolution. The council has, though, made a statement condemning Libya’s actions.

Hague stressed he wanted an international inquiry into possible war crimes, saying this represented the best chance to stop murder and atrocities by the regime. “They will be held to account. They should hear that message loud and clear,” he said.

British diplomatic sources stressed they were not supporting a no-fly zone at this point, because there are fears that too belligerent a western stance might serve to unite some Libyans behind Gaddafi.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4′s Today programme, the former foreign secretary Lord Owen became the first British politician to call for a no-fly zone, adding that the west should be concerned about the possibility that Gaddafi would unleash chemical weapons.

“We know that this is a person who could unleash either chemical or biological weapons, which he possibly still has. He is one of the worst despots we have seen for many a century. He is deeply unstable, and has been for 42 years,” Owen said.

He called for a UN charter chapter 7 intervention – meaning the authorisation of military and non-military means to “restore international peace and security” – to be enforced by Nato air forces with Egyptian military support to demonstrate regional backing for the effort.

He argued a no-fly zone similar to the one imposed on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in 1991 was feasible and wholly desirable. He said he believed the US would already have put its planes on alert.

Sarkozy went further than any other leading EU politician in calling for military action. “The continuing brutal and bloody repression against the Libyan civilian population is revolting,” he said. ” The international community cannot remain a spectator to these massive violations of human rights.”

The scale of the threat to world security was underlined by reports suggesting Gaddafi had ordered the destruction of oilfields, as well as the growing likelihood that he was willing to see a massive death toll rather than relinquish power.

Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain’s ambassador to the UN at the time of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, counselled against a no-fly zone, saying there would be strong resistance from China and Russia since they would not want a precedent that might affect them.

He said: “We all know from recent history that interventions of this kind tend to have consequences you haven’t foreseen, and I don’t think we could get it together quickly enough.”

The EU haspushed for an independent, UN-led investigation into the killing of protesters and other human rights abuses allegedly committed by Libyan security forces, saying they “may amount to crimes against humanity”.

The proposal was contained in a draft resolution tabled by EU members ahead of Friday’s emergency meeting on Libya of the Geneva-based UN human rights council.

The German foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, agreed with Sarkozy that sanctions would be “inevitable” if the Libyan regime continued to put down protests so violently.

“There is a great deal of agreement with many partners in the European Union here,” he said. “If this violence continues, everyone in Europe will know that this cannot go unanswered.

“I cannot imagine that, given these terrible pictures, these terrible events in our immediate neighbourhood, any other policy is possible in Europe.”

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

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

This article titled “UN ambassadors clash over condemnation of Gaddafi” was written by Ed Pilkington in New York, for The Guardian on Wednesday 23rd February 2011 01.57 UTC

The UN security council has called for an immediate end to the violence in Libya and demanded that Muammar Gaddafi lives up to his responsibilities to protect his own people.

A few hours after the Libyan dictator issued his defiance of the international community, the security council hit back with a unanimous statement from the 15 members of the security council that condemned the violence and deplored the repression of peaceful demonstrators.

The statement called for the immediate lifting of restrictions on all forms of the media and for the safety of foreign nationals to be ensured.

Libya’s deputy ambassador to the UN, Ibrahim al-Dabashi, who has joined a number of Libyan diplomats who have defected from the Gaddafi regime, said the UN’s position did not go far enough. “It is not strong enough, but any message to the Libyan government at this stage is good.”

Dabashi said that he had received reports that “genocide” had begun in the west of the country, with ground attacks occurring from Libyan forces working alongside “mercenaries from many African countries”.

The US and British governments welcomed the security council statement. Mark Lyall Grant, the UK ambassador to the UN, said its strength came in its contents “and the fact that it is a united message”.

The US mission to the UN said it provided a “clear and unified voice that the violence must end immediately”.

The statement has no instant teeth – it will lead to no action on the part of the international community. That would require the forging of a resolution that would take days, if not weeks, to accomplish.

Its issuing was preceded by hours of confusion over the Libyan representation at the UN. In farcical scenes, the Libyan ambassador to the UN, Abdurrahman Mohamed Shalgham who still supports Gaddafi, and deputy Dabashi, both claimed to be speaking for their nation.

In the end Shalgham addressed the security council, telling the five permanent members – the US, Britain, France, Russia and China – and 10 non-permanent members that the Libyan public prosecutor had begun to investigate the killings in the unrest so far. The ambassador denied that there had been any aerial bombardments of demonstrators, though he did concede that the eastern side of the country had fallen and was no longer in government control.

Shalgham’s appearance surprised observers as he had been absent for several days.

He said he had been holding discussions with senior members of the government, including the foreign minister, trying to persuade them to stop the bloodshed. “I am still trying to speak to the leader [Gaddafi]. We have to stop attacking Libyans,” Shalgham said.

Asked who was to blame, he answered: “All the regime is responsible. I am one of them – we are all responsible.”

Shalgham told reporters at the UN that he continued to support Gaddafi, calling him a childhood friend. “I can criticise him, but I cannot attack him.”

Lynn Pascoe, a senior UN official, said that the world body had begun to evacuate its staff from Libya.

He said that they had reported seeing “many planes flying overhead and helicopters buzzing the population” but he could not confirm incidents of aerial bombing.

Pascoe said the situation in Libya was “dangerous and deteriorating”.

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

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

This article titled “UK linked to notorious Bangladesh torture centre” was written by Ian Cobain, and Fariha Karim in Dhaka, for The Guardian on Monday 17th January 2011 21.47 UTC

UK authorities passed information about British nationals to notorious Bangladeshi intelligence agencies and police units, then pressed for information while the men were being held at a secret interrogation centre where inmates are known to have died under torture.

A Guardian investigation into counter-terrorism co-operation between the UK and Bangladesh has revealed a detailed picture of the last Labour government’s reliance on overseas intelligence agencies that were known to use torture.

Meetings and exchanges of information took place between British and Bangladeshi officials in an effort to protect the UK from attacks that might be fomented in Bangladesh, according to sources in both countries.

The likelihood that a number of suspects would be tortured as a result of the meetings went unmentioned, according to the sources. Subsequently, more than a dozen men of dual British-Bangladeshi nationality were placed under investigation, and at least some suffered horrific abuse from the Bangladeshi authorities.

At one point Jacqui Smith, then home secretary, flew to Dhaka for face-to-face meetings with senior officials from one agency, the Directorate-General of Forces Intelligence (DGFI), whose use of torture had been the subject of a detailed report by Human Rights Watch, the New York-based NGO, less than eight weeks earlier. Seven months before the visit, a report prepared by Smith’s own department had documented the widespread concern about the routine use of torture in Bangladesh. Smith spoke publicly during the visit about the dangers that could be posed by dual nationals; privately, according to a senior DGFI counter-terrorism officer, she urged that the agency investigate a number of individuals about whom the British were suspicious.

In September it emerged that in recent years MI5 and MI6 have always asked the home secretary or foreign secretary for permission before conducting any information exchange where there was a risk of an individual being tortured. Smith, her successor Alan Johnson and David Miliband, the foreign secretary during the period of the joint UK-Bangladeshi counter-terrorism campaign, have declined to answer questions about the matter.

A number of the British suspects were taken to the secret interrogation centre, known as the Task Force for Interrogation cell (TFI). The location of the TFI and the methods employed by those who work there became clear during the Guardian investigation, with both former inmates and intelligence officials speaking out about its operations.

Faisal Mostafa, from Manchester, was taken to the TFI after Smith’s visit to Dhaka and is alleged to have been forced to stand upright for the first six days of his incarceration, with his wrists shackled to bars above his head. He is then alleged to have then been beaten and subjected to electric shocks while being questioned about Bangladeshi associates. At the point at which he was to be questioned about his associates and activities in the UK, he is said to have been blindfolded and strapped to a chair while a drill was slowly driven into his right shoulder and hip.

This abuse during questioning about the UK is said to have been repeated on a number of occasions. The Guardian has seen evidence that supports the allegation that he was tortured in this manner. The report prepared by Smith’s own department povides warning that the paramilitary police unit that seized this man used precisely this method of torture.

Matiur Rahman, deputy chief of operations at the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), the police unit that detained the man, said: “The British were interested in him for some time. There was an assumption he was part of an international network. They gave information to us, and we gave information to them.”

After being tortured for several weeks the man spent almost a year in jail before being freed on bail and allowed to return to the UK.

A second man, Gulam Mustafa, from Birmingham, was being held in Bangladesh during Smith’s visit, and was released before being held a second time last April. He says he was tortured on both occasions while being questioned about associates in the UK, with his interrogators beating him, subjecting him to electric shocks and crushing his knees. He was eventually transferred to a prison hospital, where he was treated for injuries suffered he suffered during interrogation.Bangladeshi police officers who arrested him the second time say his first arrest had been at the request of MI6. “When we received the file from his first arrest from RAB, it was marked ‘MI6 File’,” said one senior detective. He added that when this man was arrested for the second time, officials from the British high commission in Dhaka contacted police and asked to be debriefed on the results of his interrogation. “They wanted maximum information.” he said.

A third man, Jamil Rahman, from Swansea, is suing the Home Office, alleging that MI5 was complicit in his torture after he was arrested in 2005 and allegedly tortured in between interrogation by two British intelligence officers.

Smith said she would not answer questions “about the timings of any specific authorisations she may or may not have given the security service”. She declined to say whether she accepted that individuals would be at risk of torture when she asked the Bangladeshi authorities to investigate them. Johnson refused to answer any questions about the matter.

Miliband failed to answer a series of questions about dual nationals investigated in Bangladesh, and about any role he played in granting permission for MI6 to be involved in their cases. A spokeswoman issued a statement on his behalf which said that there were no Foreign Office papers showing that ministers were asked to sanction the arrest of Faisal Mostafa or Gulam Mustafa. She added: “David would never ever sanction torture and it is completely wrong to suggest, imply, or leave a shadow of a doubt otherwise. The UK has detailed procedures that uphold the moral and legal conduct of the intelligence agencies and those responsible for them. When David was Foreign Secretary he followed them scrupulously.”

The Foreign Office said both Mostafa and Mustafa had been offered consular assistance, and reiterated the government’s position on torture. “The government have made absolutely clear in the Coalition’s Programme for Government that we will never condone the use of torture,” a spokesman said. “We take all allegations of torture and mistreatment very seriously, and – where we have permission to do so from the individual concerned – raise them with the relevant authorities. Our security cooperation with other countries is consistent with our laws and values.”

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

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

Remember when Obama campaigned around the country on the phony premise that president Bush alienated our allies and wrecked our relationships overseas? Anybody with a brain knows that was total bullshit and a weak liberal talking point, but assuming it was true let’s look at president Barry’s track record so far.

It has been revealed today that president Obama bizarrely sent a letter to former French president Jacques Chirac. You know, the prick who caused us to rename French fries “Freedom” fries. He was our worst ally after 9/11 and went out of his way to stick his finger in America’s eye.

But for some reason Obama sent him a letter saying he looked forward to working with him in the future.

“I am certain that we will be able to work together, in the coming four years, in a spirit of peace and friendship to build a safer world.”

To put it in perspective so that even a liberal can understand it, that would be like a newly elected European president sending a letter to Bush saying he looked forward to working with him in the coming years.

Suffice it to say, French president Nicolas Sarkozy is none to pleased.

Now let’s look back and see what kind of “repairs” Obama has made to Bush’s foreign policy that was allegedly in such tatters.

1. Insulted UK PM Gordon Brown during official White House visit and gave him a DVD box set that doesn’t even play on European dvd players.

2. Hillary Clinton gave Russia a red button with the word “reset” in Russian on it meant to signify a fresh start for relations. Unfortunately, the wrong Russian word was on the button.

3. Banned Mexican trucks from U.S. highways which is a clear violation of NAFTA and has sparked a trade war with Mexico.

4. Publicly waffling on commitment to Poland and other former Soviet Block allies on missile shield.

5. Insulted French president Sarkozy by sending letter to previous president whom he hates and we hate pledging cooperation (on what I don’t know).

This must be that “change we can believe in” I’ve been hearing about for two years.

The Guardian is reporting that Hillary Clinton will accept the Secretary of State position offered by president-elect Obama.

Hillary Clinton plans to accept the job of secretary of state offered by Barack Obama, who is reaching out to former rivals to build a broad coalition administration, the Guardian has learned.

I’m a little surprised that Hillary is actually going for it. She’s giving up the opportunity to make an impact on policy for decades to come as a powerful U.S. Senator.

Even though I disagree with her on pretty much everything, I think she’s a fine choice for Secretary of State. She’s certainly competent and well versed on the issues, and has a fine reputation overseas.

-Chris Jones