Hillary Clinton has arrived in Pakistan on a surprise visit amid frayed relations with the US nuclear-armed ally after the death of Osama bin Laden US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has arrived in Islamabad in a surprise visit amid frayed relations with the US nuclear-armed ally after the death of Osama bin Laden. The discovery of the al-Qaida leader in a garrison town just 50 km (30 miles) away from the capital Islamabad raised fresh doubts about Pakistan being a reliable partner in the US-led war on Islamist militancy. The Pakistan government welcomed the death of the al-Qaida leader but has criticised the US secret mission in Abbottabad, where bin Laden lived for years, as a breach of its sovereignty. Many US lawmakers, skeptical that Pakistani officials did not know of bin Laden’s presence, want to cut US aid to Pakistan, which the White House views as vital to counter-terrorism and to hopes of stabilising neighbouring Afghanistan. In a sign of deepening distrust, Pakistan has told the United States to halve the number of military trainers stationed in the country. But just a day before coming to Pakistan, Clinton said working with Pakistan was a strategic necessity for the United States, even as she pressed Islamabad to act more decisively to counter-terrorism. She praised Pakistan as a “good partner” in global efforts to fight terrorism, though she acknowledged that the two countries have disagreed on how hard to fight al-Qaida, Afghan Taliban fighters and other militants. “We do have a set of expectations that we are looking for the Pakistani government to meet but I want to underscore, in conclusion, that it is not as though they have been on the sidelines,” she told a news conference in Paris on Thursday. “They have been actively engaged in their own bitter fight with these terrorist extremists.” Pakistan Hillary Clinton United States Osama bin Laden US politics guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …After radical Princeton professor Cornel West savagely attacked President Obama as a Wall Street mascot and puppet, it would hardly be surprising that PBS talk-show host Tavis Smiley would provide him a forum on Wednesday night to repeat his analysis – after all, Smiley and West host a public-radio show together. But it’s still amazing that he doesn’t see his insults as very insulting: SMILEY: Did he have to be called a Black mascot and a Black puppet? There are those who suggested that you were petty, for a man who talks as much about love as you do, that you were petty for using terminology like “mascot” and “puppet.” WEST: Well, one, I am the kind of Christian, I love mascots. I love puppets, too. He’s still a human being. He’s still brilliant. He’s still charismatic. He’s got a magnificent wife, he’s got precious children. He’s still a brother in that sense. So when you call somebody a mascot, that is a putdown in terms of the role that they choose to perform. That’s not an attack on his humanity. West also tried to explain the strange-sounding line about Obama growing up (deficiently) in a white culture: WEST: Well, you say his formation was culturally White. Yes. There is such a thing as being formed culturally White. Hall and Oates is blacker than Pat Boone. Average White Band is blacker than the Beach Boys. They all White, but one’s more Black than the other. Curtis Mayfield blacker than all of them in terms of style, in terms of form, in terms of soulfulness. So it’s not a putdown. They’re all human beings. I actually appreciate Pat Boone, but I know he’s not Curtis Mayfield. I know he’s not Hall and Oates. So it’s not a matter of excluding folk from humanity, but we’ve got to tell the truth though, brother, and I’m committed to telling the truth in relation to poor and working people, whether I’m trashed or not. SMILEY: The second quote I want to get to, “I think my dear brother Barack Obama has a certain fear of free Black men. It’s understandable; as a young brother who grows up in a White context, brilliant African father, he’s always had to fear being a White man with black skin. All he has known culturally is White. He is just as human as I am, but that is his cultural formation. You just spoke on that. Anything you want to add to it? WEST: There’s a line above it – he is as human and I am, and it can be overcome. We know brother Father Pfleger, our dear brother just got his church back, St. Sabina – SMILEY: In Chicago. WEST: – one of the great prophetic churches of our country. He grew up on the vanilla side of town. He had a White formation. But he is fundamentally committed to poor people. Fundamentally committed to working people. John Brown, even a better example on the White side of town, loving Black folk more than many Black folk loved themselves. He died for Black folk. So by saying “white formation,” that’s not a – that’s a description. That’s not a racist characterization, as it were. And let’s be very honest about it – to grow up on the vanilla side of town does mean that you have a certain fear of free Black men. In fact, in his own autobiography he says his grandparents had a fear of Black men. SMILEY: And his grandmama used the “N” word. WEST: Used the “N” word. I still love the White grandparents. They loved him, and that’s a beautiful thing. But we have to be honest in terms of historical formation. But you know what? What’s fascinating to me, though, Tavis, and this is where you see the pathology of the pundit class, if people could spend as much energy trashing me and demonizing me as focusing on mass incarceration and the prison industrial complex, tell the truth about the military industrial complex, half of the federal budget, tell the truth about Wall Street oligarchy and the greed still running amok this very minute tied to the glitz and the gluttony that goes with it. Tell the truth about the corporate media that is market-driven, that doesn’t want to allow progressive voices to tell the truth about the corporate state and the imperial wars connected between the two. That’s the sad thing.
Continue reading …enlarge Credit: United Nations Photo Edward Stitinius (L) and Tom Connolly (C) and nervous aide (R). Harbinger of things to come . Click here to view this media This day in 1945 the San Francisco Peace conference was getting underway, laying the groundwork for what would become the United Nations Charter. With war still going on in the Pacific, delegates from Europe, the Middle East, Africa and South America met to establish a means of working together as a Post-War world was coming into view. But even then, even as the war was continuing, suspicions were raised over the future relationship between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Was all this euphoria going to last? Some didn’t think so. And even Assistant Secretary of State Archibald MacLeish made mention of it in this broadcast, part of a radio series devoted to the San Francisco Conference and our Foreign Policy. Archibald MacLeish (Asst. Sec. of State): “Political events in Europe are regarded in some quarters not only as denying the promise of San Francisco but as qualifying the hope that the continuing collaboration between the great powers, upon which San Francisco is based, can continue. Certain commentators have even spoken openly of an inevitable conflict of interest between the Russians and ourselves, and have debated the question whether Russia, our present ally in this war, is our enemy or our friend. A curious debate, one would think, with our soldiers living side by side in conquered Germany and our common dead but freshly buried.” Interesting when you consider the Cold War became a reality not that long after these suspicions were cast. Interesting too, when you consider many members of the State Department at the time, including Alger Hiss, were hounded out of the State Department and labeled Communist operatives, triggering the Witch Hunts and Red Scare that permeated our National psyche for the better part of four decades. But it all started out so optimistically. Here is “Report From San Francisco – Part 5″ as broadcast on May 26, 1945.
Continue reading …Click here to view this media As reported earlier, Ed Schultz found himself in some hot water for calling right wing radio host and Fox pundit Laura Ingraham a “right wing slut” on his radio show this Tuesday . Schultz apologized tonight during the intro to his nightly television show on MSNBC. MSNBC has suspended Schultz for one week without pay for the incident. While I cannot and do not condone the kind of sexist remark made by Schultz and there is no excuse for what he said, someone let me know when anyone on right wing radio or over at Fox ever gets some time off or apologizes for the kind of sexist or racist remarks we hear out of their mouths on a weekly basis, will you?
Continue reading …New code designed to stop middle-income families moving near to popular schools – but other state schools miss out on cash Academy and free schools will be allowed to reserve places for children entitled to free meals under a new admissions code published by the Department for Education. It gives those schools – but not other state schools – the right to take children whose families’ annual income is £16,190 or below rather than those from better-off families. The current code forbids all state schools from choosing pupils based on their family income. Academies and free schools stand to gain financially over other schools. The coalition last year introduced the pupil premium , which entitles schools to £430 for each pupil on free school meals. A source from the Department for Education (DfE) said the move was designed to stop middle-income families moving near to popular schools and monopolising their intake. A spokesman said children eligible for free school meals often came from “the most vulnerable groups and had parents who often lack the resources to help them access our more successful schools”. It was one of the government’s priorities to break the “cycle of deprivation”. “We wish to give a permissive approach to those schools who believe that children eligible for free school meals would thrive in their educational care,” he said. The journalist Toby Young said he hoped the governing body of his free school in Hammersmith and Fulham, west London, which is likely to open by September, would set aside a quarter of places for children on free school meals.. He welcomed the change. “We want the West London Free School to be a genuine comprehensive, reflecting the social diversity of the local area, and this will enable us to achieve that.” But Fiona Millar, a founder of the Local Schools Network, said it was unfair that academies and free schools were subject to different rules. “There should be one admissions code. If schools that aren’t academies or free schools want to give more places to pupils on free school meals, they should be allowed to.” Ministers are likely to have modelled the change on KIPP charter schools in the US which specifically target poorer children. The DfE source said it would be up to individual academies and free schools to decide whether they wanted to offer a proportion of places to the poorest pupils and no quota would be imposed from Whitehall. They would offer places to pupils on free school meals who applied to their school, rather than select them. However, Alan McMurdo, principal of Thomas Deacon academy in Peterborough, said that his school already ensured a comprehensive intake by setting all prospective pupils a verbal reasoning test, dividing pupils into 10 “bands” according to their results and taking the same number from each band. “Although we welcome the flexibility that this brings, we feel duty-bound to keep to the admissions arrangements we have,” he said. “Our banding system ensures that we are not seduced into taking swathes of higher-income children.” Earlier this week, Michael Gove, the education secretary, told the Guardian that more parents would get their first choice of school under the code. He said the government planned to “remove bureaucracy” around the expansion of good schools. Weaker schools would feel the squeeze, he said. School admissions Academies Education policy Schools Free schools Poverty Liberal-Conservative coalition Michael Gove Jessica Shepherd guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Simon Rosenberg, a former advisor to President Bill Clinton, decided Thursday that he wasn’t going to be pushed around by conservative radio host Ben Ferguson during a discussion about Medicare on Fox News. Fox News’ Shannon Bream had invited Rosenberg to respond to video published by ABC News that showed Clinton telling Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) that he hoped Democrats wouldn’t use a Democratic congressional win in New York as “an excuse to do nothing” on reforming Medicare. “Does that hurt the current administration’s efforts and what Democrats in the White House are trying to do, with President Clinton suggesting maybe they do stop the fear mongering and get to work?” Bream asked. “I don’t think that anything that’s happened in the last few months is fear mongering,” Rosenberg replied. “Dumping a woman off a cliff isn’t fear mongering,” Ferguson interrupted, referring to an ad by The Agenda Project that shows a Paul Ryan lookalike pushing an elderly woman in a wheelchair off a cliff. Rosenberg calmly quoted Clinton as saying that under the Ryan plan, “medical costs will continue to go up and older people will use less, get sicker and die quicker or they will be poorer because they will have to spend more money on health care.” “That’s fear mongering,” Ferguson interrupted again. “Ben, shut up. It’s unbelievable how much you talk,” a frustrated Rosenberg said. “It’s not fear mongering. It is a factual, correct interpretation of the Ryan plan. The Ryan plan is bad public policy. It would have killed people prematurely. That’s fact.” After Ferguson interrupted yet again, Bream asked that Rosenberg be allowed to finish his answer. “Why should I come on this show if I can’t talk?” Rosenberg asked. “You can pout and that’s what you guys do well at,” Ferguson charged. With that, Rosenberg took off his microphone and walked off the set.
Continue reading …Conservatives furious as Liberal Democrat leader says it will take at least six months to go through the bill for a second time A full-scale row erupted at the highest levels of the coalition after Nick Clegg bounced Downing Street and the Department of Health by announcing that the government’s troubled NHS reforms would be delayed by at least six months. As Conservatives backbenchers indicated that they were spoiling for a fight, by laying down a series of “red lines” over the NHS, Tory sources indicated that Clegg had caught them on the hop when he demanded a delay. The deputy prime minister’s unilateral announcement that the two month-long line-by-line committee stage examination of the health and social care bill should be repeated prompted accusations that he was “freelancing”. Nick de Bois, the MP for Enfield North, who set out the “red lines” in an email to fellow MPs leaked to the Guardian, said: “These are premature and inappropriate comments. We are still in the listening exercise. Our coalition partners have had the loudest voices in this debate and I am keen that the Conservative backbenchers have their voice heard so we can highlight our red lines that come from our manifesto.” Senior Lib Dems indicated they believed they had the upper hand. One source said: “The Tories are flustered. Nick has played the politics of this rather shrewdly. If there are going to be substantive changes who can argue with the idea of giving MPs a chance to scrutinise? It will delay the bill by at least a few months.” Clegg told patients and medical professionals at University College London hospital that it would be wrong to force the bill through parliament after the government’s “listening exercise” on the NHS proposals ends next month. “I don’t think it would be right for us to hold this listening exercise – to make big changes to the legislation – and then to seek to bounce it through parliament,” he said. “It is very important that MPs, who represent millions of patients up and down the country, have the opportunity to really look at the details that we are proposing. “I think we will need to send the bill back to committee. I have always said that it is best to take our time to get it right rather than move too fast and risk getting the details wrong.” The deputy prime minister surprised Tory ministers because his remarks were made to the Guardian in a question-and-answer session after a speech in which he buried Andrew Lansley’s 2013 target for the changes by rejecting “arbitrary deadlines”. The speech had been agreed with Downing Street and the Department of Health, which had not approved any mention of sending the bill back to the committee stage. It is understood that Lansley, the health secretary, and David Cameron accept the bill will have to repeat at least some of its committee stage because major amendments will be tabled when the government responds to the Future Forum’s report after the “listening exercise”. But health ministers are expected to say that only parts of the bill need to be reconsidered in this way to ensure that it can complete all its Commons stages by the summer recess. The Lib Dems disagree and say the bill is unlikely to complete its Commons stages by the end of July, raising the prospect that it may not reach the Lords until after the party conference season in the autumn. Clegg indicated after his speech that he favoured a slow pace when he said: “We will introduce substantive, big changes. My desire – I think everyone’s desire – is just to get it right. The NHS is simply too precious, too important to millions of people in this country to rush things and get it wrong.” De Bois made clear that the Tories were determined to preserve key elements of Lansley’s original blueprint. The “red lines” identified by De Bois directly clashed with Clegg over: • The new GP-led commissioning consortiums, which are meant to take control of 65% of the NHS budget. The Tory MP said GPs must take charge of commissioning. Clegg wants to open up membership of the new consortiums. • Lansley’s original 2013 deadline, which Clegg dismissed as “arbitrary”. De Bois said: “Contrary to what is being said in public by others, this is a very reasonable period of time.” • Patients should be able to be “treated at any qualified provider”. Clegg said there would be “no sudden, top-down opening up of all NHS services to any qualified provider”. • Monitor, the health regulator, must be retained to promote patient choice. Clegg said Monitor should be retained but must not “push competition”. De Bois said: “The Conservative party manifesto – on which we were all elected – does the job of setting out some key red lines from which we should not retreat … I am determined that we reclaim the debate over the future of the National Health Service from those who seek to use the bill as a political tool.” John Healey, the shadow health secretary, who tabled a motion on Wednesday calling for the bill to repeat its committee stage, said: “The differences between Clegg and Lansley confirm this is a divided not coalition government. Those divisions are adding more confusion and uncertainty for NHS staff and patients waiting for David Cameron to decide what changes he will make to his NHS plans.” Nick Clegg Conservatives NHS Health Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Conservatives furious as Liberal Democrat leader says it will take at least six months to go through the bill for a second time A full-scale row erupted at the highest levels of the coalition after Nick Clegg bounced Downing Street and the Department of Health by announcing that the government’s troubled NHS reforms would be delayed by at least six months. As Conservatives backbenchers indicated that they were spoiling for a fight, by laying down a series of “red lines” over the NHS, Tory sources indicated that Clegg had caught them on the hop when he demanded a delay. The deputy prime minister’s unilateral announcement that the two month-long line-by-line committee stage examination of the health and social care bill should be repeated prompted accusations that he was “freelancing”. Nick de Bois, the MP for Enfield North, who set out the “red lines” in an email to fellow MPs leaked to the Guardian, said: “These are premature and inappropriate comments. We are still in the listening exercise. Our coalition partners have had the loudest voices in this debate and I am keen that the Conservative backbenchers have their voice heard so we can highlight our red lines that come from our manifesto.” Senior Lib Dems indicated they believed they had the upper hand. One source said: “The Tories are flustered. Nick has played the politics of this rather shrewdly. If there are going to be substantive changes who can argue with the idea of giving MPs a chance to scrutinise? It will delay the bill by at least a few months.” Clegg told patients and medical professionals at University College London hospital that it would be wrong to force the bill through parliament after the government’s “listening exercise” on the NHS proposals ends next month. “I don’t think it would be right for us to hold this listening exercise – to make big changes to the legislation – and then to seek to bounce it through parliament,” he said. “It is very important that MPs, who represent millions of patients up and down the country, have the opportunity to really look at the details that we are proposing. “I think we will need to send the bill back to committee. I have always said that it is best to take our time to get it right rather than move too fast and risk getting the details wrong.” The deputy prime minister surprised Tory ministers because his remarks were made to the Guardian in a question-and-answer session after a speech in which he buried Andrew Lansley’s 2013 target for the changes by rejecting “arbitrary deadlines”. The speech had been agreed with Downing Street and the Department of Health, which had not approved any mention of sending the bill back to the committee stage. It is understood that Lansley, the health secretary, and David Cameron accept the bill will have to repeat at least some of its committee stage because major amendments will be tabled when the government responds to the Future Forum’s report after the “listening exercise”. But health ministers are expected to say that only parts of the bill need to be reconsidered in this way to ensure that it can complete all its Commons stages by the summer recess. The Lib Dems disagree and say the bill is unlikely to complete its Commons stages by the end of July, raising the prospect that it may not reach the Lords until after the party conference season in the autumn. Clegg indicated after his speech that he favoured a slow pace when he said: “We will introduce substantive, big changes. My desire – I think everyone’s desire – is just to get it right. The NHS is simply too precious, too important to millions of people in this country to rush things and get it wrong.” De Bois made clear that the Tories were determined to preserve key elements of Lansley’s original blueprint. The “red lines” identified by De Bois directly clashed with Clegg over: • The new GP-led commissioning consortiums, which are meant to take control of 65% of the NHS budget. The Tory MP said GPs must take charge of commissioning. Clegg wants to open up membership of the new consortiums. • Lansley’s original 2013 deadline, which Clegg dismissed as “arbitrary”. De Bois said: “Contrary to what is being said in public by others, this is a very reasonable period of time.” • Patients should be able to be “treated at any qualified provider”. Clegg said there would be “no sudden, top-down opening up of all NHS services to any qualified provider”. • Monitor, the health regulator, must be retained to promote patient choice. Clegg said Monitor should be retained but must not “push competition”. De Bois said: “The Conservative party manifesto – on which we were all elected – does the job of setting out some key red lines from which we should not retreat … I am determined that we reclaim the debate over the future of the National Health Service from those who seek to use the bill as a political tool.” John Healey, the shadow health secretary, who tabled a motion on Wednesday calling for the bill to repeat its committee stage, said: “The differences between Clegg and Lansley confirm this is a divided not coalition government. Those divisions are adding more confusion and uncertainty for NHS staff and patients waiting for David Cameron to decide what changes he will make to his NHS plans.” Nick Clegg Conservatives NHS Health Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Clashes between Hashid clan and president’s forces intensify as the two sides battle for government buildings The blown-out windows in the gothic-style mansion overlook a sandbagged courtyard strewed with 4x4s, fallen trees, stray dogs and empty bullet casings. The crack of machine gunfire competes with the steady boom of mortars as men hurry in and out the building ferrying food and ammunition to their comrades inside. A few days ago this extravagant fortress perched atop a hill in the east of the Yemeni capital was the tranquil abode of Sadeq al-Ahmar, leader of the Hashid, the country’s wealthiest and most powerful tribe. Now it is a bullet-pocked, crumbling garrison shrouded in black smoke from mortar fire, and home to hundreds of Kalashnikov-wielding tribesmen who are battling it out in the streets with President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s security forces in an effort to end his three decade-long rule. The sound of gunfire and exploding mortar shells has echoed through Sana’a for four days now since Saleh refused on Sunday to accept a Gulf Co-operation Council-negotiated resolution to Yemen’s four-month crisis that would have eased him out of power with immunity. More than 100 people have been killed. The clashes between Saleh’s republican guard and members of the Hashid tribe, are the bloodiest Yemen has seen since protests began in January and briskly fanning the fears of civil war. After a brief lull on Wednesday night, fighting seemed to intensify on Thursday as the two sides, now separated only by a few residential blocks, fired anti-aircraft missiles at each other as they scrambled for control of government buildings and the airport, their battle slowly encroaching further towards the centre of the city. A huge explosion rang out just after midday, rattling the windows of houses across the capital after a stray shell hit a munitions depot. A defence ministry official said at least 28 people, most of them civilians, had died. A few hours later Suhail TV, the country’s only opposition television station was taken off air after its headquarters was shelled by government forces. With the violence flaring, panic has begun to grip Sana’a. Long lines of cars and buses with bags strapped to the roofs were seen filtering out of the city. Those staying put have started hoarding, withdrawing cash, and filling buckets with petrol and barricading themselves indoors. The foreign secretary, William Hague, urged Saleh to hand over power, reduced embassy staff and warned all British expatriates to leave Yemen immediately. “British Nationals should not remain [in Yemen] … I cannot stress this too strongly,” he said. The United States also ordered non-essential personnel and family members of staff to leave the country. “The security threat level in Yemen is extremely high due to terrorist activities and civil unrest,” the state department said. Shopkeeper Fares al-Mana, who was leaving the Yemeni capital, said the confrontations were spreading. “It’s no longer possible to stay in Sana’a,” he said. In an act that suggests the president’s patience is running thin, Saleh ordered the arrest of Ahmar, whose men now control of several ministry buildings near his compound including the trade and tourism ministries, as well as the offices of the state news agency Saba. The tribal chief remained defiant. In an interview with al-Jazeera on Thursday he called Saleh a liar and said he had captured 70 government troops. “I’m protected by Hashid and other tribesmen and even by army soldiers, I have 70 soldiers captive. Ali Abdullah Saleh is a liar, liar, liar. We are firm. He will leave this country barefoot,” he said. Back at Ahmar’s fortress, his guards were bracing themselves for another night of fighting. “This started as self-defence but now we’re fighting for his downfall,” said Sheikh Mohammed al-Farasi, a scrawny man with bloodshot eyes loading his AK-47 with cartridges. “There’s no bigger shame for a tribal leader than having his house attacked. The only way this can end is if Saleh goes, the tribes have said enough is enough.” Attempts at mediation have thus far failed. On Tuesday a sheikh sent by Saleh to try to defuse the situation was killed when Ahmar’s house came under heavy fire from government forces. “What we’re witnessing now is a battle between the two most powerful families in Yemen, a conflict that has been brewing for several years which because of Saleh’s stubbornness has come to its head,” said Abdullah al-Faqah, professor of politics at Sana’a University. “This was a foolish fight for him [Saleh] to pick.” The Ahmar clan head Hashid, the largest tribal confederation in Yemen. Saleh had managed to keep the family patriarch, Abdullah, onside during his rule, but since he died in December 2007, power has passed to the 10 Ahmar brothers. Four brothers from the most significant threat to Saleh’s rule. They include Sadiq, the head of the Hashid tribal; Hamir, the deputy speaker of parliament; Hussein, a powerful tribal leader; and, most significant of all, Hamid, a business tycoon and founder of the opposition party Islah. Hamid has positioned himself as a potential successor to Saleh and accuses the president of violating the constitution by turning Yemen into his family enterprise. Hamid is now thought to be bankrolling the opposition as well as supporting the upkeep of the hundreds of thousands of anti-government protesters camping out in Sana’a’s Change Square. General Ali al-Mohsen, one of Yemen’s most powerful military leaders who defected in March and so far steered clear of the violence but called on the armed forces to defy the president. “Beware of following this madman who is thirsty for more bloodshed,” he said. Yemen Middle East Arab and Middle East unrest Tom Finn guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Clashes between Hashid clan and president’s forces intensify as the two sides battle for government buildings The blown-out windows in the gothic-style mansion overlook a sandbagged courtyard strewed with 4x4s, fallen trees, stray dogs and empty bullet casings. The crack of machine gunfire competes with the steady boom of mortars as men hurry in and out the building ferrying food and ammunition to their comrades inside. A few days ago this extravagant fortress perched atop a hill in the east of the Yemeni capital was the tranquil abode of Sadeq al-Ahmar, leader of the Hashid, the country’s wealthiest and most powerful tribe. Now it is a bullet-pocked, crumbling garrison shrouded in black smoke from mortar fire, and home to hundreds of Kalashnikov-wielding tribesmen who are battling it out in the streets with President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s security forces in an effort to end his three decade-long rule. The sound of gunfire and exploding mortar shells has echoed through Sana’a for four days now since Saleh refused on Sunday to accept a Gulf Co-operation Council-negotiated resolution to Yemen’s four-month crisis that would have eased him out of power with immunity. More than 100 people have been killed. The clashes between Saleh’s republican guard and members of the Hashid tribe, are the bloodiest Yemen has seen since protests began in January and briskly fanning the fears of civil war. After a brief lull on Wednesday night, fighting seemed to intensify on Thursday as the two sides, now separated only by a few residential blocks, fired anti-aircraft missiles at each other as they scrambled for control of government buildings and the airport, their battle slowly encroaching further towards the centre of the city. A huge explosion rang out just after midday, rattling the windows of houses across the capital after a stray shell hit a munitions depot. A defence ministry official said at least 28 people, most of them civilians, had died. A few hours later Suhail TV, the country’s only opposition television station was taken off air after its headquarters was shelled by government forces. With the violence flaring, panic has begun to grip Sana’a. Long lines of cars and buses with bags strapped to the roofs were seen filtering out of the city. Those staying put have started hoarding, withdrawing cash, and filling buckets with petrol and barricading themselves indoors. The foreign secretary, William Hague, urged Saleh to hand over power, reduced embassy staff and warned all British expatriates to leave Yemen immediately. “British Nationals should not remain [in Yemen] … I cannot stress this too strongly,” he said. The United States also ordered non-essential personnel and family members of staff to leave the country. “The security threat level in Yemen is extremely high due to terrorist activities and civil unrest,” the state department said. Shopkeeper Fares al-Mana, who was leaving the Yemeni capital, said the confrontations were spreading. “It’s no longer possible to stay in Sana’a,” he said. In an act that suggests the president’s patience is running thin, Saleh ordered the arrest of Ahmar, whose men now control of several ministry buildings near his compound including the trade and tourism ministries, as well as the offices of the state news agency Saba. The tribal chief remained defiant. In an interview with al-Jazeera on Thursday he called Saleh a liar and said he had captured 70 government troops. “I’m protected by Hashid and other tribesmen and even by army soldiers, I have 70 soldiers captive. Ali Abdullah Saleh is a liar, liar, liar. We are firm. He will leave this country barefoot,” he said. Back at Ahmar’s fortress, his guards were bracing themselves for another night of fighting. “This started as self-defence but now we’re fighting for his downfall,” said Sheikh Mohammed al-Farasi, a scrawny man with bloodshot eyes loading his AK-47 with cartridges. “There’s no bigger shame for a tribal leader than having his house attacked. The only way this can end is if Saleh goes, the tribes have said enough is enough.” Attempts at mediation have thus far failed. On Tuesday a sheikh sent by Saleh to try to defuse the situation was killed when Ahmar’s house came under heavy fire from government forces. “What we’re witnessing now is a battle between the two most powerful families in Yemen, a conflict that has been brewing for several years which because of Saleh’s stubbornness has come to its head,” said Abdullah al-Faqah, professor of politics at Sana’a University. “This was a foolish fight for him [Saleh] to pick.” The Ahmar clan head Hashid, the largest tribal confederation in Yemen. Saleh had managed to keep the family patriarch, Abdullah, onside during his rule, but since he died in December 2007, power has passed to the 10 Ahmar brothers. Four brothers from the most significant threat to Saleh’s rule. They include Sadiq, the head of the Hashid tribal; Hamir, the deputy speaker of parliament; Hussein, a powerful tribal leader; and, most significant of all, Hamid, a business tycoon and founder of the opposition party Islah. Hamid has positioned himself as a potential successor to Saleh and accuses the president of violating the constitution by turning Yemen into his family enterprise. Hamid is now thought to be bankrolling the opposition as well as supporting the upkeep of the hundreds of thousands of anti-government protesters camping out in Sana’a’s Change Square. General Ali al-Mohsen, one of Yemen’s most powerful military leaders who defected in March and so far steered clear of the violence but called on the armed forces to defy the president. “Beware of following this madman who is thirsty for more bloodshed,” he said. Yemen Middle East Arab and Middle East unrest Tom Finn guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …