Changing Libyan Tactics Pose Problems for NATO
Published: April 6, 2011

PARIS — Angry charges by Libyan rebels that NATO has failed to come to their aid point up a question that has haunted the Western air campaign from the start: how to avoid a stalemate and defeat the Libyan leader without putting foreign troops on the ground NATO officials and the French foreign minister, Alain Juppé, rejected the opposition criticism on Wednesday, saying that bad weather and evolving tactics by forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi were limiting the air war, which is supposed to be protecting Libyan civilians and driving the colonel’s troops to retreat to their barracks. In recent days, Qaddafi forces have stepped up their shelling of Misurata, in the west, and pushed rebels back from some eastern oil towns.

The rebels, of course, are a largely untrained, disorganized fighting force. But the nature of the battle has also changed since a United Nations resolution authorized “all necessary measures” to protect civilians.

In the early stages of the air campaign, allied warplanes blistered Qaddafi tanks, artillery and transport trucks in the desert outside the rebel capital, Benghazi. But American intelligence reports from Libya say that the Qaddafi forces are now hiding their troops and weaponry among urban populations and traveling in pickup trucks and S.U.V.’s rather than military vehicles, making them extremely difficult targets.

“The military capabilities available to Qaddafi remain quite substantial,” said a senior Pentagon official who watches Libya. “What this shows is that you cannot guarantee tipping the balance of ground operations only with bombs and missiles from the air.”

NATO officials, who just took over responsibility for the air campaign from the United States, deny that their bureaucracy is somehow limiting the campaign. “No country is vetoing this target or that one; it’s not like Kosovo,” where in 1999 some countries objected to certain bombing targets, said a senior NATO official, asking anonymity in accordance with diplomatic practice.

“The military command is doing what it wants to do,” he said.

NATO officials said on Wednesday that NATO was flying more missions every day, and that defending Misurata was a priority. Carmen Romero, a NATO spokeswoman, said that the alliance flew 137 missions on Monday and 186 on Tuesday, and planned 198 on Wednesday. “We have a clear mandate, and we will do everything to protect the citizens of Misurata.”

A rebel spokesman in Misurata said Wednesday that NATO had delivered two airstrikes that pushed the Qaddafi forces away from the port, opening it for vital supply ships. “We have renewed momentum, and our friends are helping us big time,” said Mohamed, a rebel spokesman whose name was withheld for the protection of his family.

“NATO is not the problem,” the senior NATO official said. “The Qaddafi forces have learned and have adapted. They’re using human shields, so it’s difficult to attack them from the air.” While many Western officials have accused the Qaddafi forces of using human shields, they have yet to produce explicit evidence. But they generally mean that the troops take shelter, with their armor, in civilian areas.

The harder question is how NATO will respond to the changed tactics of the Qaddafi forces, which now seem to have achieved a stalemate against the combination of Western air power and the ragtag opposition army.

First, there is a question of whether without the participation of the United States, the rest of the coalition — France, Britain, Italy, Spain, Norway, Qatar and a few others — have the right mix of weapons or enough of them. In particular, the United States uses a jet called the A-10, or Warthog — which flies lower and slower than other airplanes but has cannon that can destroy armored vehicles — as well as the AC-130, both of which are effective in more built-up areas. The Europeans have nothing similar.

The United States has had C.I.A. agents on the ground with the rebels in eastern Libya for some time, and there are unconfirmed reports that they may be helping to train the rebel army’s raw recruits. Even so, forming a real army that can oust Colonel Qaddafi may take many months, and the coalition is unlikely to be that patient.

That is one reason that allied governments, including the United States and Britain, are urging defections from the Qaddafi circle and hoping that he will be removed from inside. No official, of course, is willing to talk about any covert mission to remove the colonel, except to say that “regime change” is not authorized by the United Nations.

And that is why Britain, Turkey and the United States are all exploring the possibilities of a negotiated solution to the conflict, provided Colonel Qaddafi and his sons relinquish power.
François Heisbourg, a military policy expert at the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris, said, “Given where we are, any deal that removes Colonel Qaddafi from the scene is a deal we should take.” As for the current air war, NATO is especially sensitive to the criticism that came most scathingly from the leader of the Libyan opposition forces, Gen. Abdul Fattah Younes. He said in Benghazi late Tuesday that “NATO blesses us every now and then with a bombardment here and there, and is letting the people of Misurata die every day.”

Mr. Juppé, whose country has been the most aggressive in defense of the Libyan opposition, said on Wednesday that the situation in Misurata was difficult, but it was complicated by the need to protect civilian lives.

“Misurata is in a situation that cannot carry on,” Mr. Juppé told France Info radio. “But I want to make clear that we categorically asked that there is no collateral damage on the civilian population, so it makes the military interventions more difficult, because Qaddafi’s troops understood it very well and are getting closer to the civilian population.”

He said he would bring up the difficulties of Misurata to the NATO secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

Rebel leaders have rejected the idea that the Qaddafi forces in Misurata cannot be attacked from the air, saying that the neighborhoods where the troops are concentrated were long ago abandoned by civilians.

Another option is to increase the pressure on Colonel Qaddafi and his sons, although openly changing the objective in Libya from protecting civilians to ousting the Qaddafi family from power would probably shatter the international coalition that is enforcing the United Nations resolution, said Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

“Nevertheless,” he added, “the U.S. and its allies need to make hard — if somewhat covert — choices, and make them quickly,” he said in an e-mailed commentary. “The last thing anyone needs at a time when there is near-turmoil from Pakistan to Morocco is a long-lasting open wound of political division and extended conflict in Libya as the worst-of-the-worst authoritarian leaders elsewhere in the region struggle to survive.”

NATO needs to take the rebels’ side more forcefully, he said, despite the neutrality of the United Nations resolution. That could take several forms, he said, among them “killing Qaddafi forces the moment they move or concentrate, rather than waiting for them to attack; striking Qaddafi’s military and security facilities; and finding excuses to strike his compound.”

For Libya, Mr. Cordesman wrote, “a long political and economic crisis and an extended low-level conflict that devastates populated areas” would represent a “net humanitarian cost” that would be “higher than fully backing the rebels, with air power and covert arms and training.”

source:
nytimes.com

Qaddafi Writes to Obama, Urging End to Airstrikes


TRIPOLI, Libya — Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya sent another strikingly personal letter to President Obama on Wednesday, urging him to stop NATO’s airstrikes but drawing a swift rejection in response. You will always remain our son whatever happened,” Colonel Qaddafi wrote. “We Endeavour and hope that you will gain victory in the new election campaigne. You are a man who has enough courage to annul a wrong and mistaken action,” he added, in idiosyncratic spelling and capitalization.

Mr. Obama, who since his inauguration has received at least three letters full of fatherly affection from the Libyan leader, did not respond. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton fired back to Colonel Qaddafi: “There needs to be a cease-fire; his forces need to withdraw from the cities that they have forcibly taken at great violence and human cost. There needs to be a decision made about his departure from power.”

The letter from Colonel Qaddafi arrived as his government traded accusations with the rebels over who was responsible for attacks that hampered or cut off oil production at the Misla and Sarir fields of southeastern Libya. In the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, a rebel spokesman blamed Qaddafi loyalists for the three days of attacks. The spokesman, Abdul Hafidh Ghoga, said the rebels were producing 100,000 barrels a day before the attacks.

Mr. Ghoga said rebels would still be able to ship oil, through an agreement with Qatar, from an estimated one million barrels held in reserve. But he added, “I think that we will not depend on oil revenues in the coming stage because our production has been affected in this crisis.”

His remarks appeared to contradict statements just a day before by the leader of the rebel army, Abdul Fattah Younes, who had called the attacks insignificant.

In Tripoli, the Libyan capital, Khalid Kaim, a deputy foreign minister, said British warplanes had struck the oil fields, killing three guards and other employees. “It is an aggression against the oil infrastructure of Libya,” Mr. Kaim said, calling the Qatari operations at the port in Tobruk a “piracy operation.” Neither account could be confirmed.

Mr. Ghoga said members of the rebels’ Transitional National Council had met with an American envoy, Chris Stevens, who was seeking information about the nature of the council members and other leaders in eastern Libya. “We understand the American government’s position,” Mr. Ghoga said. “They would like to find out more about us. We are exerting all efforts to secure formal recognition.”

In eastern Libya, the battle for the oil town of Brega remained unresolved. After pulling back many of their forces on Tuesday, the rebels moved forward once more. There were no apparent rebel casualties on Wednesday, but their small column remained strung along the coastal highway north and east of the town. NATO aircraft were heard overhead intermittently during the day, and rebels said they heard at least two airstrikes.

In Colonel Qaddafi’s letter, addressed to “Mr. Our dear son, Excellency, Baraka Hussein Abu Oumama,” the Libyan leader reiterated his characterization of the rebels as “Al Qaeda gangs.” He recalled Mr. Obama’s repeated statements “that America is not responsible for the security of other peoples.”

“That America helps only. This is the right logic,” Colonel Qaddafi wrote, adding, “As you know too well democracy and building of civil society cannot be achieved by means of missiles and aircraft, or by backing armed members of Al Qaeda in Benghazi.” Journalists in rebel-held territory have found little evidence of activity by Al Qaeda or other radical Islamists.

source:
nytimes.com

__________________
It's Not Over 'til I Win

U.S. Sees Array of New Threats at Japan’s Nuclear Plant
By JAMES GLANZ and WILLIAM J. BROAD
Published: April 5, 2011


United States government engineers sent to help with the crisis in Japan are warning that the troubled nuclear plant there is facing a wide array of fresh threats that could persist indefinitely, and that in some cases are expected to increase as a result of the very measures being taken to keep the plant stable, according to a confidential assessment prepared by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Among the new threats that were cited in the assessment, dated March 26, are the mounting stresses placed on the containment structures as they fill with radioactive cooling water, making them more vulnerable to rupture in one of the aftershocks rattling the site after the earthquake and tsunami of March 11. The document also cites the possibility of explosions inside the containment structures due to the release of hydrogen and oxygen from seawater pumped into the reactors, and offers new details on how semimolten fuel rods and salt buildup are impeding the flow of fresh water meant to cool the nuclear cores.

In recent days, workers have grappled with several side effects of the emergency measures taken to keep nuclear fuel at the plant from overheating, including leaks of radioactive water at the site and radiation burns to workers who step into the water. The assessment, as well as interviews with officials familiar with it, points to a new panoply of complex challenges that water creates for the safety of workers and the recovery and long-term stability of the reactors.

While the assessment does not speculate on the likelihood of new explosions or damage from an aftershock, either could lead to a breach of the containment structures in one or more of the crippled reactors, the last barriers that prevent a much more serious release of radiation from the nuclear core. If the fuel continues to heat and melt because of ineffective cooling, some nuclear experts say, that could also leave a radioactive mass that could stay molten for an extended period.

The document, which was obtained by The New York Times, provides a more detailed technical assessment than Japanese officials have provided of the conundrum facing the Japanese as they struggle to prevent more fuel from melting at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. But it appears to rely largely on data shared with American experts by the Japanese.

Among other problems, the document raises new questions about whether pouring water on nuclear fuel in the absence of functioning cooling systems can be sustained indefinitely. Experts have said the Japanese need to continue to keep the fuel cool for many months until the plant can be stabilized, but there is growing awareness that the risks of pumping water on the fuel present a whole new category of challenges that the nuclear industry is only beginning to comprehend.

The document also suggests that fragments or particles of nuclear fuel from spent fuel pools above the reactors were blown “up to one mile from the units,” and that pieces of highly radioactive material fell between two units and had to be “bulldozed over,” presumably to protect workers at the site. The ejection of nuclear material, which may have occurred during one of the earlier hydrogen explosions, may indicate more extensive damage to the extremely radioactive pools than previously disclosed.

David A. Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer who worked on the kinds of General Electric reactors used in Japan and now directs the nuclear safety project at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said that the welter of problems revealed in the document at three separate reactors made a successful outcome even more uncertain.

“I thought they were, not out of the woods, but at least at the edge of the woods,” said Mr. Lochbaum, who was not involved in preparing the document. “This paints a very different picture, and suggests that things are a lot worse. They could still have more damage in a big way if some of these things don’t work out for them.”

The steps recommended by the nuclear commission include injecting nitrogen, an inert gas, into the containment structures in an attempt to purge them of hydrogen and oxygen, which could combine to produce explosions. On Wednesday, the Tokyo Electric Power Company, which owns the plant, said it was preparing to take such a step and to inject nitrogen into one of the reactor containment vessels.

The document also recommends that engineers continue adding boron to cooling water to help prevent the cores from restarting the nuclear reaction, a process known as criticality.

Even so, the engineers who prepared the document do not believe that a resumption of criticality is an immediate likelihood, Neil Wilmshurst, vice president of the nuclear sector at the Electric Power Research Institute, said when contacted about the document. “I have seen no data to suggest that there is criticality ongoing,” said Mr. Wilmshurst, who was involved in the assessment.

The document was prepared for the commission’s Reactor Safety Team, which is assisting the Japanese government and the Tokyo Electric Power Company. It says it is based on the “most recent available data” from numerous Japanese and American organizations, including the electric power company, the Japan Atomic Industrial Forum, the United States Department of Energy, General Electric and the Electric Power Research Institute, an independent, nonprofit group.
The document contains detailed assessments of each of the plant’s six reactors along with recommendations for action. Nuclear experts familiar with the assessment said that it was regularly updated but that over all, the March 26 version closely reflected current thinking.

The assessment provides graphic new detail on the conditions of the damaged cores in reactors 1, 2 and 3. Because slumping fuel and salt from seawater that had been used as a coolant is probably blocking circulation pathways, the water flow in No. 1 “is severely restricted and likely blocked.” Inside the core itself, “there is likely no water level,” the assessment says, adding that as a result, “it is difficult to determine how much cooling is getting to the fuel.” Similar problems exist in No. 2 and No. 3, although the blockage is probably less severe, the assessment says.

Some of the salt may have been washed away in the past week with the switch from seawater to fresh water cooling, nuclear experts said.

A rise in the water level of the containment structures has often been depicted as a possible way to immerse and cool the fuel. The assessment, however, warns that “when flooding containment, consider the implications of water weight on seismic capability of containment.”

Experts in nuclear plant design say that this warning refers to the enormous stress put on the containment structures by the rising water. The more water in the structures, the more easily a large aftershock could rupture one of them.

Margaret Harding, a former reactor designer for General Electric, warned of aftershocks and said, “If I were in the Japanese’s shoes, I’d be very reluctant to have tons and tons of water sitting in a containment whose structural integrity hasn’t been checked since the earthquake.”

The N.R.C. document also expressed concern about the potential for a “hazardous atmosphere” in the concrete-and-steel containment structures because of the release of hydrogen and oxygen from the seawater in a highly radioactive environment.

Hydrogen explosions in the first few days of the disaster heavily damaged several reactor buildings and in one case may have damaged a containment structure. That hydrogen was produced by a mechanism involving the metal cladding of the nuclear fuel. The document urged that Japanese operators restore the ability to purge the structures of these gases and fill them with stable nitrogen gas, a capability lost after the quake and tsunami.

Nuclear experts say that radiation from the core of a reactor can split water molecules in two, releasing hydrogen. Mr. Wilmshurst said that since the March 26 document, engineers had calculated that the amount of hydrogen produced would be small. But Jay A. LaVerne, a physicist at Notre Dame, said that at least near the fuel rods, some hydrogen would in fact be produced, and could react with oxygen. “If so,” Mr. LaVerne said in an interview, “you have an explosive mixture being formed near the fuel rods.”

Nuclear engineers have warned in recent days that the pools outside the containment buildings that hold spent fuel rods could pose an even greater danger than the melted reactor cores. The pools, which sit atop the reactor buildings and are meant to keep spent fuel submerged in water, have lost their cooling systems.

The N.R.C. report suggests that the fuel pool of the No. 4 reactor suffered a hydrogen explosion early in the Japanese crisis and could have shed much radioactive material into the environment, what it calls “a major source term release.”

Experts worry about the fuel pools because explosions have torn away their roofs and exposed their radioactive contents. By contrast, reactors have strong containment vessels that stand a better chance of bottling up radiation from a meltdown of the fuel in the reactor core.

“Even the best juggler in the world can get too many balls up in the air,” Mr. Lochbaum said of the multiplicity of problems at the plant. “They’ve got a lot of nasty things to negotiate in the future, and one missed step could make the situation much, much worse.”

source:
nytimes

__________________
It's Not Over 'til I Win

Ivory Coast Leader Swayed by Force as He Considers Exit
By ADAM NOSSITER and SCOTT SAYARE
Published: April 5, 2011

TAKORADI, Ghana — Holed up in a bunker under his residence, Ivory Coast’s strongman, Laurent Gbagbo, negotiated the terms of his potential surrender on Tuesday, as opposition forces closed in, his generals called on their forces to lay down their arms and French and United Nations negotiators demanded that he officially renounce control of the country. It was the culmination of a four-month standoff that has underscored both the strengths and limits of international diplomacy. For months, Mr. Gbagbo has refused to step down after losing a presidential election last year, angrily defying global condemnation and hard-hitting sanctions as his nation spiraled back into civil war.

In the end, it came down to force. The international stance, taken by African and Western countries alike, greatly weakened Mr. Gbagbo’s ability to govern. But his willingness even to discuss the terms of his exit came only after opposition forces swept across the country and France and the United Nations entered the fight, striking targets at his residence, his offices and two of his military bases in what they called an effort to protect civilians.

On Tuesday, a day after the international attacks, France’s foreign minister, Alain Juppé, said at a Parliament hearing that French negotiators were helping to broker Mr. Gbagbo’s surrender, demanding that he sign a document formally recognizing Alassane Ouattara, the man who won the election, as the country’s legitimate president. The United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, had backed the French terms, Mr. Juppé said.

“What is going on are negotiations with Laurent Gbagbo and his family, to finalize the conditions of his departure,” he said.

Despite running out of options, Mr. Gbagbo continued to sound defiant on Tuesday, telling French television that he had not surrendered, that he remained the legitimate president and that France had declared war against Ivory Coast.

“Yesterday, Monday, France entered directly into war against us,” he said. "Before that, it was at war with us, but in an indirect way.”

Diplomats said Mr. Gbagbo appeared to believe he still had a bargaining position, though his government and armed forces had collapsed around him.

“It’s over but he’s still trying to play games,” a senior Western diplomat in Abidjan said Tuesday night, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the negotiations were still under way. “The exact substance of what he’s trying to negotiate is foggy.”

The United Nations said Tuesday that Mr. Gbagbo’s top three generals had called “to say that an order to stop fighting was being given,” and that their troops were being told to hand in their weapons to United Nations forces and ask for their protection.

But the situation remained very much in flux. “It’s far from settled, but it’s close to being over,” said the American ambassador to Ivory Coast, Phillip Carter.

Even if Mr. Gbagbo agreed to step down, officials for Mr. Ouattara said they would insist on him being prosecuted — either at home or abroad — for the extended campaign of armed repression he waged against opponents for four months after the election.

“He will be prosecuted,” said Apollinaire Yapi, a spokesman for Mr. Ouattara. “He must be prosecuted. Do we keep him here, do we send him abroad, I don’t know,” he continued, adding: “He must answer for his actions.”

It was also unclear whether Mr. Gbagbo’s supporters would accept Mr. Ouattara as president. While President Obama said Tuesday that he strongly supported the United Nations and French strikes against Mr. Gbagbo’s military positions, saying they were part of a “mandate to protect civilians,” many Ivorians will see them as part of a Western plot to undermine the nation’s sovereignty, a theme Mr. Gbagbo has exploited to great effect over the four-month crisis.

In that vein, a spokesman for Mr. Gbagbo, Ahoua Don Mello, described the international military strikes on Monday, which France and the United Nations said were aimed at the kind of heavy weapons that had been used against civilians during the crisis, as an attempt to assassinate Mr. Gbagbo.

“The residence of the head of state is not a heavy weapon,” he told French television, referring to French assertions that the attacks were directed at heavy artillery and armored vehicles stationed at Mr. Gbagbo’s residence and offices.

Throughout the four-month crisis, international officials have warned both sides not to attack civilians, and international prosecutors have threatened to bring criminal charges, to little avail. United Nations officials have also threatened to run roadblocks and use robust force to protect civilians, but the military strikes this week stood out as a notable departure from their usual peacekeeping efforts.

Alain Le Roy, head of peacekeeping operations at the United Nations, described the use of airstrikes on Mr. Gbagbo’s forces this week as a necessity. “It was a heavy decision,” he said.

France, the nation’s former colonial ruler, has about 1,650 troops in Ivory Coast and hoped that United Nations and Ivorian authorities under Mr. Ouattara would take charge of the “departure conditions of Gbagbo” once an agreement was reached, Mr. Juppé said.

Several hundred French soldiers patrolled Abidjan on Tuesday, but neither French nor United Nations forces engaged in any additional strikes against pro-Gbagbo forces or installations, according to Col. Thierry Burkhard, a spokesman for the French armed forces. Fighting between soldiers loyal to Mr. Gbagbo and to Mr. Ouattara appeared to have all but stopped by midmorning Tuesday, he said.

Mr. Gbagbo seemed to agree to at least that much. His foreign minister, Alcide Djédjé, said Mr. Gbagbo had sent him to the French ambassador’s residence to negotiate a cease-fire. Speaking on French radio from the residence afterward, Mr. Djédjé said a cease-fire was “already in place.”

Still, there was sporadic firing, with groups of Mr. Gbagbo’s armed supporters looting and threatening the rare citizens who ventured out. There was almost no traffic.

“Weapons were so widely distributed, there are groups of young men who are using them to terrorize the population, or to pillage,” Mr. Yapi said.

source:
nytimes

__________________
It's Not Over 'til I Win

Extremists Are Suspected in Killing of Pakistani Minister
By JANE PERLEZ
Published: March 2, 2011

LAHORE, Pakistan — The only Christian cabinet minister in the Pakistani government was shot dead Wednesday two months after the assassination of another liberal politician, raising questions about how firmly Pakistan’s government is tackling Islamist extremism The slain official, Shahbaz Bhatti, 41, the minister of minorities, had made a life’s work of campaigning for tolerance in Pakistan, which is 95 percent Muslim, and most recently became a lonely voice, with a handful of others, in a campaign to reform the harsh blasphemy law.

After the assassination in January of the Punjab Province governor, Salman Taseer, who had also publicly called for changes to the blasphemy law, Mr. Bhatti feared for his life but continued, though more quietly, to work toward his dream of ultimately repealing the law, his associates said.

The law, introduced in the 1970s, was amended in 1986 under Gen. Mohammad Zia ul-Haq, the American-backed military leader, to include the death penalty for those accused of speaking against the Prophet Muhammad.

Mr. Bhatti, the founder of a nongovernmental organization dedicated to helping Christians and Hindus, was particularly focused on abolishing the death penalty, said his press secretary, Rahael Gill.

President Asif Ali Zardari told members of his governing Pakistan Peoples Party at a meeting in the southern port city of Karachi that Mr. Bhatti was a victim of a “negative mind-set and intolerance,” according to the state-run news service.

But Mr. Zardari, fearful for his personal security, failed to attend the funeral of his colleague, Mr. Taseer, and the few members of his party who favored changing the blasphemy law have been sidelined in the last two months and effectively silenced. Mr. Taseer’s killer has been hailed as a hero in rallies held by conservative religious parties.

Mr. Bhatti was heading for a cabinet meeting when three or four gunmen ambushed his car outside his house in a middle-class neighborhood of the capital, Islamabad, and shot him multiple times as he sat in the back seat, the police said.

The killers, dressed in traditional Pakistani garb of baggy pants and long tunic, fled the scene in a white car. The hospital where Mr. Bhatti was pronounced dead said 20 bullets had been fired.

A pamphlet found at the site warned against changes in the blasphemy law and was signed by militants, police officials said. It specifically named Mr. Bhatti.

A spokesman for the Taliban, who is based in Punjab, later called Pakistani media and claimed responsibility for the assassination.

Mr. Bhatti, worried about the death threats he received after the killing of Mr. Taseer, had asked the Interior Ministry for a bulletproof car and a larger squad of security guards, standard measures for many government ministers, Mr. Gill said.

But the request was ignored, Mr. Gill said. There was no sign of a security detail as Mr. Bhatti left his house on Wednesday morning, witnesses said.

In Washington, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called the assassination “an attack not only on one man but on the values of tolerance and respect for people of all faiths and backgrounds that had been championed by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan.”

Mrs. Clinton, who recently met with Mr. Bhatti during a visit he made to Washington, called him a “very impressive, courageous man” who knew the danger he faced.

Shortly before his death, Mr. Bhatti said he knew extremists were after him. “I am receiving threats on speaking against the blasphemy law, but my faith gives me strength and we will not allow the handful of extremists to fulfill their agenda,” he said.

The Vatican spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, quickly issued a statement calling the murder of Mr. Bhatti a “terribly grave new act of violence” that “demonstrates that the pope’s insistent addresses regarding violence against Christians and religious freedom have been justified.”

Christians make up less than 5 percent of the 180 million people in Pakistan, and are clustered in some of the poor neighborhoods on the outskirts of cities in Punjab where militant extremism is sharply increasing.

A prominent liberal lawyer, Babar Sattar, said he worried the gunmen would get away “scot- free,” and criticized the government for its reaction to Mr. Taseer’s killing. “If the state had come down strongly and with an unequivocal message that this would not be tolerated after Salman Taseer’s murder perhaps these people would be stopped,” he said.

The government-employed bodyguard who killed Mr. Taseer was showered with petals at his court appearances by lawyers, who several years ago were considered to be the vanguard of a more open Pakistan.
By stifling discussion on the blasphemy law, the Pakistan Peoples Party was retreating from its original principles of a secular Pakistan, and giving free rein to the conservative Islam that has seeped into government circles and the military, Mr. Sattar said. After the assassination of Mr. Taseer, and the outpouring of sympathy for his killer, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani pledged in Parliament that the government had no intention of changing the blasphemy laws.

A senior member of the Pakistan Peoples Party, Sherry Rehman, was told by Mr. Gilani last month to withdraw a bill she sponsored that called for reform of the law. In the charged atmosphere since Mr. Taseer’s murder, Ms. Rehman lives under the protection of armed guards at her home in Karachi, and spends much of her time fighting court cases filed against her by conservative religious leaders.

Mr. Bhatti, in contrast to the wealthy, outspoken and sociable Mr. Taseer, lived modestly, was single and “married to his work,” an associate said.

“Thoroughly Pakistani, a gentleman, a follower of Jinnah,” the founder of Pakistan, said Shaukat Javed, a former head of the police force in Punjab.

Chosen by the Pakistan Peoples Party in 2008 to fill one of five parliamentary seats allocated to members of minority communities, Mr. Bhatti became increasing isolated in the party as its leadership bent to the pressure of conservative religious groups in the last several months.

Even so Mr. Bhatti never gave up, Mr. Sattar said.

When a Christian woman, Asia Bibi, was given a death sentence last year, Mr. Bhatti agreed with Mr. Taseer that she should be granted a pardon. He wrote a report for President Zardari outlining the facts of the Bibi case, emphasizing that the blasphemy law was a tool to persecute minorities.

He was then asked by Mr. Zardari to head a panel of scholars, including Muslims, to review the blasphemy laws, but the members of the panel were never named because of the religious fervor unleashed by Mr. Taseer’s murder, friends of Mr. Bhatti said.

Last Sunday, Mr. Bhatti was busy arranging a memorial service for Mr. Taseer in Lahore this weekend.

Now, his friends said, the service will very likely be held for the two men, one quiet, one brash, who fought for the cause of a more tolerant Pakistan and lost their lives in the quest.

source:
nytimes

__________________
It's Not Over 'til I Win

Libya's opposition calls for a ceasefire

The UN Security Council resolution aimed at protecting civilians in Libya started with the call for "the immediate establishment of a ceasefire". But for the first two weeks the only action taken by the powerful countries that orchestrated the UN response was to escalate military engagement – a no-fly zone, air strikes, "all necessary means".

The US and other western countries continued calling openly for regime change. Some African Union heads of state tried to go to Libya to begin negotiations, but were denied entry to the country, apparently in response to South Africa's vote supporting the UN resolution. A ceasefire didn't seem to be at the top of anyone's agenda.

But now the Libyan opposition has publicly called for a ceasefire. And despite their US and European backers' insistence, and the clear preference of at least part of the resistance for regime change, they outlined terms that fall well short of the regime's collapse.

The head of the Benghazi-based Interim Governing Council, Mustafa Abd Jalil, following a meeting with the UN's special envoy to Libya, offered Gaddafi an immediate ceasefire if "the forces that are besieging the cities withdraw," and if "our brothers in the western cities have freedom of expression".

Change of terrain

The Gaddafi regime's initial military attack on the democratic protesters followed by the decision of the opposition to take up arms itself, has largely transformed the Libyan conflict from a civilian uprising that was part of the Arab Spring, into a civil war.

So far, even the combination of massive US-NATO air strikes, CIA agents on the ground coordinating with the opposition, Obama's authorisation to arm the rebels, and the defection of Moussa Koussa and other key Qaddafi aides, has not been sufficient to defeat the regime's military.

The two sides continue to battle for control of key cities along Libya's entire coastal strip. Claiming they simply "hoped" Gaddafi’s regime would crumble from within, US, European and other international actors had staked out positions that essentially ruled out negotiations while the longtime Libyan leader remained in power.

The opposition's sudden call for a ceasefire has significantly changed the terrain.

Clearly this is the moment for a rapid international move towards new negotiations aimed at establishing the immediate ceasefire. The opposition's shift may reflect their growing realisation that even the massive US-NATO attacks against the regime and the possibility of CIA arms and training will not ensure – let alone consolidate – a real victory over the far better-armed and better-trained forces of Gaddafi's military.

This new position may also reflect a growing uncertainty as to whether the vastly disparate components of the opposition – young democratically-oriented professionals, unemployed workers, a range of Islamists, defecting regime soldiers, newly returned Libyan CIA assets and more – can unify enough to continue fighting. They also may be watching the rapidly disintegrating international support for the western coalition fighting on their side of the civil war, and judging that they dare not rely too much on their current allies.

Finally, the opposition may have recognized the increasing danger to civilians across Libya posed by the escalating fighting. Even NATO is warning its erstwhile partners, the Libyan opposition, against attacking civilians.

Deal with the devil?

How would a ceasefire come about? Clearly urgent negotiations are needed. There are outraged gasps of "Negotiate?! With Gaddafi?!" – mostly coming from US and European officials. They need to be answered with the quick reminder that until about six weeks ago, that same Muammar Gaddafi was their guy.

They need to be reminded that in 2003, US and European diplomats negotiated quite nicely with their Libyan counterparts, and, in just about a year reached an agreement in which Gaddafi surrendered his nascent nuclear weapons program and paid huge compensation claims to victims of Libyan terrorist attacks.

The US meanwhile removed Libya from its "anti-terror" blacklist and ended sanctions, while European governments rushed to embrace the Libyan dictator and European oil companies flooded Libya with new oil contracts. And they need to be reminded that Gaddafi's repression was well known back then too. So yes, negotiations are possible – and urgent.

A ceasefire will certainly be difficult to establish – and it will be even more difficult to maintain. One possibility would be to empower key regional forces to monitor and maintain the ceasefire. If both the African Union and the Arab League were involved, their perceived pro-Gaddafi and pro-opposition biases, respectively, would cancel each other out and allow a greater chance of an impartial peacekeeping role.

If Libya's newly-democratising neighbours, Egypt and Tunisia, were to play a central role, their legitimacy and interest in maintaining stability would lend important credibility to the effort. Even if those two countries, both struggling to create post-dictator governance, are unable to provide major military or police forces, symbolic command from Cairo and Tunis would still be important.

And certainly funding for such a ceasefire monitoring force should come from those outside countries who so quickly managed to find ready cash to pay for F-15s, Tomahawk missiles, Mirage fighters, etc.

Draw-backs

Certainly there are dangers. A ceasefire in place, however urgently needed, unfortunately implies at least a temporary division of Libya. The opposition’s proposal would lead to a division of the country into separate zones, with the government and military having different levels of control in each.

In the east, the opposition has established its capital in Benghazi and controls the territory between Benghazi and the Egyptian border. The opposition's offer would require the regime to withdraw its troops from the cities where the fighting has been fiercest, but just which cities are we talking about? Only those identified as "eastern Libya," which usually means east of Sirte, Gaddafi's historic stronghold halfway between Benghazi and Tripoli?

If so, what about Misurata, much closer to Tripoli and actually west of Sirte, where heavy fighting has gone on too? And who would govern in those cities, the now-demilitarized remnants of the regime, or the still-inchoate Libyan opposition?

In the west, meantime, the opposition is not demanding that the regime's troops withdraw, let alone that Gaddafi step down or that his regime be dismantled. The only condition is for guarantees of free speech for people living in "the western cities".

Again, which cities are we talking about? Misurata is certainly one of Libya's "western cities," but it has also seen some of the most intense fighting between the regime’s troops and opposition supporters. All those issues of territorial control and division will need to be resolved – and unless the Gaddafi regime is weaker than it appears, that will not be easy.

A ceasefire alone does not answer all those critical questions.

It should mean an end to US claims that somehow the UN resolutions' unequivocal demand for a complete arms embargo does not apply to weapons sent to strengthen the opposition – but the US may continue that claim and it will have to be challenged.

A ceasefire does not provide for the kind of real accountability so desperately needed to hold not only Gaddafi but other dictators across the region, those already overthrown and those still holding on to power, to account for their human rights violations and other crimes.

The situation in Libya has been referred to the International Criminal Court, where prosecutors are already investigating possible violations. A ceasefire should not end those investigations, but the timing of accountability efforts always has to take into consideration the requirements of ending bloodshed.

So yes, a ceasefire in place raises all kinds of new complications. But it allows the possibility of negotiating those complicated issues without more people dying. The US and some of the Europeans claim they are bombing Libya at the request of the Libyan opposition.

Now that that same Libyan opposition is requesting a ceasefire, the western coalition needs to fulfil their request immediately and unilaterally. And negotiations towards a full immediate ceasefire in Libya should now be at the top of every agenda.

source:
aljazeera.net

__________________
It's Not Over 'til I Win

Libyan Rebels Preparing to Export Oil
by Edward Yeranian

Libya's rebels are about to export their first oil shipment under a deal with Qatar to market crude from eastern Libya.

The Libyan opposition provisional national council is on the verge of gaining a key source of revenue as it prepares to begin shipping oil from the eastern port of Marsa al Hariga.

An oil tanker arrived Tuesday to take delivery of the first shipment.

Most of Libya's oil fields are in rebel-controlled territory, but production has slowed to a trickle due to the political and military conflict. A rebel spokesman said recently that the provisional council was hoping to increase production from 150,000 barrels per day to 300,000 barrels per day.

Al Jazeera TV reported Tuesday that fighting on the fringes of several eastern Libyan oil fields was endangering production facilities. It said forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi had cut power to the Serir oil field and had arrested some employees at the Mesila field. Unconfirmed reports Monday spoke of artillery fire from pro-Gadhafi forces on both oil fields, but there was no confirmation of damage.

The government of Qatar has agreed to help the rebels market crude oil from eastern Libya. The opposition needs hard currency and weapons to fight Gadhafi loyalists. Qatar, France and Italy, Libya's former colonial power, have recognized the rebels as the country's legitimate government.

Khattar Abou Diab, who teaches political science at the University of Paris, says both Libya's strategic location on the Mediterranean Sea and the country's oil and gas reserves make it a prize for international rivals:

He says that Libya is the gate to sub-Saharan Africa, and that oil is one of two key interests. The first, he says, is geo-political, and the second is oil and gas, because Libyan oil is among the least expensive to extract and among the best in terms of quality. He says there may also be untapped oil fields that oil companies know about and are hoping to compete for.

Abou Diab says Italy, Britain and France all want to protect their interests in Libya, as do China and Russia. He notes Libya returned U.S. oil concessions several years ago when political ties were restored. The French oil conglomerate Total has important oil interests in eastern Libya, and Italy has an important gas pipeline from the town of Brega.

Current fighting between Gadhafi loyalists and rebel forces has paralyzed Brega and the neighboring oil facility town of Ras Lanouf.

In western Libya, gasoline is reported to be in short supply and recently-imposed U.N. economic sanctions are crippling the economy

source:
VoA

__________________
It's Not Over 'til I Win