Use of helicopters, which can attack small targets, represents significant escalation of conflict Britain is to use Apache attack helicopters in an attempt to break the military stalemate in Libya, security sources have told the Guardian. In a highly significant escalation of the conflict, the Apaches – based on HMS Ocean – will join French helicopters in the operation. They will be deployed to stop Gaddafi forces who are continuing to attack civilians in the port city of Misrata, according to well-placed Whitehall officials. Apaches are being used in counter–insurgency operations in Afghanistan and can manoeuvre and attack small targets in relatively built-up areas. The decision to deploy the helicopters is a clear recognition that high-level bombing cannot protect civilians who continue to be attacked by rocket and mortar shells. British officials revealed the plans to deploy the Apaches after France announced it was sending attack helicopters to Libya. Britain and France clearly hope their use, and revealing the intention to use them, will deter pro-Gaddafi forces. Britain and other Nato countries have insisted they will not deploy troops “on the ground” in Libya – a move that would be strongly opposed by most Nato countries, including the US and by those Arab countries in favour of the air campaign against Gaddafi’s forces. “We are very much behind the intensification of the military campaign and … so is France,” said foreign secretary William Hague who was attending an EU ministerial meeting in Brussels. “We certainly agree with France, and indeed with all our partners, including all our partners at the EU meeting , that it is necessary to intensify the military, economic and diplomatic pressure on the Gaddafi regime.” France’s foreign minister confirmed Paris had dispatched a dozen helicopters to add greater strike force to the campaign against Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. Speaking in Brussels at the meeting of EU foreign ministers, Alain Juppe said that the 12 Tigre and Gazelle helicopters sent from Toulon on 17 May would enable “us to better adapt our ground attack capacity with more precise means of striking.” “Our strategy is to step up the military pressure in the weeks ahead while pushing at the same time for a political solution,” said Juppe. According to French sources the battleship Tonnerre carrying the helicopters left Toulon last week. The vessel combines the roles of helicopter-carrier, hospital ship, and troops transporter. Juppe said the helicopters would not be used to disgorge ground forces in Libya and that the decision to send them was fully in line with the UN security council resolution mandating ground attacks. Libya Military France Muammar Gaddafi Nato Richard Norton-Taylor guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Sarah Teather says the supply of speech therapy and basic equipment for children with special needs has become a ‘postcode lottery’ The children and families minister has attacked the health service for failing some of the country’s most vulnerable young people. Sarah Teather said the chance of a child receiving much-needed speech and language therapy was “between low and nil”, while the wait for a wheelchair could be “really long”. Teather, who spent most of her own secondary school days in a wheelchair after suffering from a viral infection, said the health service “has not always been good at doing its fair share for children in this position”. Families were often left as the “piggy in the middle”, she said in an interview with the Guardian. Health workers often agreed with parents that a child needed a wheelchair, incontinence pads or a form of therapy, but “nobody pays for it” and it fails to arrive, she said. This could severely impair a child’s chances in the future, she warned: “A six-month wait for speech and language therapy can be critical; an 18-month wait can be really critical.” In some cases, by the time a wheelchair arrives, a child has grown too big for it, she said, adding that it was a “postcode lottery” to get basic equipment. Government proposals, published in a green paper in March, would improve life for children with special needs and disabilities and their families, she said. At the moment, children with severe or multiple health and learning disabilities receive a statement from their local authority. This covers only the services that schools are expected to give children, rather than those they need from the health service or social services. The green paper proposes to replace the existing statement of special educational needs with a single care plan covering schooling, health and social services from birth to the age of 25. This would mean a child’s educational, social and health needs would be dealt with together. The plan would reflect a family’s needs and ambitions for the child’s future and would be continually reviewed. The green paper also set out plans to give parents a personal budget to spend on services such as one-to-one tuition, laptops and wheelchairs. “Rather than a family having to go to the council trying to bang down their door to get something, [the council] are coming to you saying, this is what we normally provide. The family then has a conversation about whether it is appropriate,” Teather said. The government also plans to introduce into all schools a programme to help children with special needs improve at a faster rate. Researchers found the Achievement for All programme helped nine- and 10-year-olds with special needs to learn reading, writing and maths three times faster than they were expected to under the national curriculum. Under the same programme, 14- and 15-year-olds with special needs made progress in maths and English that was equivalent to having an extra term of lessons in a year. The programme, which has been piloted in 454 schools in 10 local authorities since 2009, works by setting pupils regular targets. Teachers and parents discuss progress three times a year for a minimum of 45 minutes. Children with special needs and disabilities are strongly encouraged to join school clubs and activities outside lessons. Sonia Blandford, director of the programme, said it could reduce by 10% the proportion of children registered as having special needs. Special educational needs Learning disability NHS Health Children Social policy and administration Health policy Schools Jessica Shepherd guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
John Hemming MP unmasked Giggs as the married star whose injunction over an alleged affair caused a storm on Twitter Ryan Giggs has been named as the footballer at the centre of a media gagging order after a Liberal Democrat MP used parliamentary privilege to flout an injunction. John Hemming, the MP for Birmingham Yardley, was rebuked by Commons speaker John Bercow after using a question to attorney general Dominic Grieve to name the Manchester United midfielder. Hemming made the intervention after Grieve announced that David Cameron had asked for a joint committee of peers and MPs to investigate the use of gagging orders. This came amid warnings from one influential Conservative MP that the actions of thousands of people posting details on Twitter of individuals involved in superinjunctions risked making the law “look an ass”. To the condemnation of some of his colleagues, Hemming, who has been campaigning on the issue, exercised parliamentary privilege to identify the star at the centre of the injunction just minutes after the high court refused to lift a ban on naming the sportsman, who is said to have had a relationship with Imogen Thomas, the former Big Brother contestant. “With about 75,000 people having named Ryan Giggs on Twitter, it’s obviously impractical to imprison them all,” Hemming said. He also went on to declare that Giles Coren, the Times columnist, was the journalist supposedly threatened with contempt of court proceedings in relation to another privacy injunction – although Grieve had previously told MPs that he was not planning legal proceedings against a journalist in relation to this case. Bercow told Hemming over his comments: “Let me just say to the honourable gentleman, I know he’s already done it, but occasions such as this are occasions for raising the issues of principle involved, not seeking to flout for whatever purpose. If the honourable gentleman wants to finish his question in an orderly way, he can do so.” Hemming responded: “The question is what the government’s view is on an enforceability of a law that clearly doesn’t have public consent.” Grieve, who would be responsible for any prosecution for contempt, told MPs that it was their duty “as parliamentarians” to uphold the rule of law. The attorney general announced the prime minister’s decision to have a joint committee to examine the issues raised by the events of the past few months and especially the past weekend relating to the superinjunction. Grieve told MPs that the committee would examine whether the current system was working following Cameron’s letter to John Whittingdale, chairman of the Commons culture committee, recommending the setting up of a new body. Setting out Cameron’s recommendation of a new committee, Grieve said: “Such a committee would be able to use representation of both houses and the considerable expertise that select committees have to examine whether the current arrangements are working and to consider whether we might make any changes that might make things work better.” Grieve announced the move in response to an urgent question in the Commons from Whittingdale on the use of injunctions. Earlier, the high court refused to allow journalists to name Giggs as the married footballer at the centre of the alleged affair with Thomas. Lawyers for the Sun asked for the controversial privacy ruling to be lifted after a Scottish newspaper identified the star at the weekend and the prime minister said he knew his identity “like everybody else”. David Cameron signalled on Monday morning that the government would look at the matter of injunctions as he suggested that the UK’s current law on privacy is “unsustainable”. Cameron said the situation whereby newspapers “can’t print something that everyone else is clearly talking about” was unfair. The prime minister said the government had “to take some time out” to look at the matter, but said there was no “simple answer”. He suggested one option could be to beef up the press watchdog. “It’s not fair on the newspapers if all the social media can report this and the newspapers can’t, and so the law and the practice has got to catch up with how people consume media today,” he said. Later, Grieve told MPs that a balance needed to be struck. He said: “The government believes freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our democracy and it is of the greatest importance that people should be able to discuss and debate issues as freely and openly as possible. This includes those occasions when freedom of speech is exercised provocatively, as it’s supposed to be in a free country. “Plainly, however, there are also occasions when an individual is entitled to have their privacy protected. There is a balance to be struck and this is reflected in our existing legal framework.” There were “widely differing views” on what that balance should be, he acknowledged. Grieve welcomed the report produced last week by a panel of senior judges on the operation of injunctions and super-injunctions. “It reaffirms that open justice is a fundamental constitutional principle and that exceptions to this are only permissible to the extent that they are strictly necessary in the interests of justice,” he said. Grieve, speaking before Hemmings made his contribution, said: “Legal mechanisms exist to review individual decisions which may be mistaken. If we believe in the rule of law, it is our duty as parliamentarians to uphold those principles.” Whittingdale said the use of social media such as Twitter to breach injunctions was in danger of making “the law look an ass”. He told Grieve: “You would virtually have to be living in an igloo not to know the identity of at least one Premier League footballer who has obtained an injunction. The actions by thousands of people of posting details of this on Twitter are in danger of making the law look an ass.” Grieve warned: “The courts do have power to punish those who breach injunctions and those who decide flagrantly to do so should bear that in mind when they embark on that course of action.” Ryan Giggs Superinjunctions Twitter Internet Hélène Mulholland guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …John Hemming MP unmasked Giggs as the married star whose injunction over an alleged affair caused a storm on Twitter Ryan Giggs has been named as the footballer at the centre of a media gagging order after a Liberal Democrat MP used parliamentary privilege to flout an injunction. John Hemming, the MP for Birmingham Yardley, was rebuked by Commons speaker John Bercow after using a question to attorney general Dominic Grieve to name the Manchester United midfielder. Hemming made the intervention after Grieve announced that David Cameron had asked for a joint committee of peers and MPs to investigate the use of gagging orders. This came amid warnings from one influential Conservative MP that the actions of thousands of people posting details on Twitter of individuals involved in superinjunctions risked making the law “look an ass”. To the condemnation of some of his colleagues, Hemming, who has been campaigning on the issue, exercised parliamentary privilege to identify the star at the centre of the injunction just minutes after the high court refused to lift a ban on naming the sportsman, who is said to have had a relationship with Imogen Thomas, the former Big Brother contestant. “With about 75,000 people having named Ryan Giggs on Twitter, it’s obviously impractical to imprison them all,” Hemming said. He also went on to declare that Giles Coren, the Times columnist, was the journalist supposedly threatened with contempt of court proceedings in relation to another privacy injunction – although Grieve had previously told MPs that he was not planning legal proceedings against a journalist in relation to this case. Bercow told Hemming over his comments: “Let me just say to the honourable gentleman, I know he’s already done it, but occasions such as this are occasions for raising the issues of principle involved, not seeking to flout for whatever purpose. If the honourable gentleman wants to finish his question in an orderly way, he can do so.” Hemming responded: “The question is what the government’s view is on an enforceability of a law that clearly doesn’t have public consent.” Grieve, who would be responsible for any prosecution for contempt, told MPs that it was their duty “as parliamentarians” to uphold the rule of law. The attorney general announced the prime minister’s decision to have a joint committee to examine the issues raised by the events of the past few months and especially the past weekend relating to the superinjunction. Grieve told MPs that the committee would examine whether the current system was working following Cameron’s letter to John Whittingdale, chairman of the Commons culture committee, recommending the setting up of a new body. Setting out Cameron’s recommendation of a new committee, Grieve said: “Such a committee would be able to use representation of both houses and the considerable expertise that select committees have to examine whether the current arrangements are working and to consider whether we might make any changes that might make things work better.” Grieve announced the move in response to an urgent question in the Commons from Whittingdale on the use of injunctions. Earlier, the high court refused to allow journalists to name Giggs as the married footballer at the centre of the alleged affair with Thomas. Lawyers for the Sun asked for the controversial privacy ruling to be lifted after a Scottish newspaper identified the star at the weekend and the prime minister said he knew his identity “like everybody else”. David Cameron signalled on Monday morning that the government would look at the matter of injunctions as he suggested that the UK’s current law on privacy is “unsustainable”. Cameron said the situation whereby newspapers “can’t print something that everyone else is clearly talking about” was unfair. The prime minister said the government had “to take some time out” to look at the matter, but said there was no “simple answer”. He suggested one option could be to beef up the press watchdog. “It’s not fair on the newspapers if all the social media can report this and the newspapers can’t, and so the law and the practice has got to catch up with how people consume media today,” he said. Later, Grieve told MPs that a balance needed to be struck. He said: “The government believes freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our democracy and it is of the greatest importance that people should be able to discuss and debate issues as freely and openly as possible. This includes those occasions when freedom of speech is exercised provocatively, as it’s supposed to be in a free country. “Plainly, however, there are also occasions when an individual is entitled to have their privacy protected. There is a balance to be struck and this is reflected in our existing legal framework.” There were “widely differing views” on what that balance should be, he acknowledged. Grieve welcomed the report produced last week by a panel of senior judges on the operation of injunctions and super-injunctions. “It reaffirms that open justice is a fundamental constitutional principle and that exceptions to this are only permissible to the extent that they are strictly necessary in the interests of justice,” he said. Grieve, speaking before Hemmings made his contribution, said: “Legal mechanisms exist to review individual decisions which may be mistaken. If we believe in the rule of law, it is our duty as parliamentarians to uphold those principles.” Whittingdale said the use of social media such as Twitter to breach injunctions was in danger of making “the law look an ass”. He told Grieve: “You would virtually have to be living in an igloo not to know the identity of at least one Premier League footballer who has obtained an injunction. The actions by thousands of people of posting details of this on Twitter are in danger of making the law look an ass.” Grieve warned: “The courts do have power to punish those who breach injunctions and those who decide flagrantly to do so should bear that in mind when they embark on that course of action.” Ryan Giggs Superinjunctions Twitter Internet Hélène Mulholland guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
• Pakistani Taliban claim responsibility for ‘revenge’ raid • Ten military personnel killed in long gunfight Pakistani commandos regained control of a military base in central Karachi on Monday, ending an audacious 18-hour militant assault that killed 10 soldiers, destroyed two sensitive aircraft and dealt a humiliating blow to the army three weeks after the raid that killed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. Flames glowed over Pakistan’s largest city amid a cacophony of gunfire and explosions as up to six heavily-armed militants wreaked havoc until Monday lunchtime inside the Mehran base, just off a major thoroughfare. Six American military contractors and 11 Chinese nationals were present but escaped unharmed, officials said. The Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility, describing the attack as “revenge for the martyrdom of Osama bin Laden”. But analysts said a smaller jihadi group could also have been involved. Displaying pictures of the dead attackers on his mobile phone, the interior minister, Rehman Malik, called on Pakistanis to unite against the Taliban and al-Qaida. “I regret that some of us believe they are our friends and are praying for them. I appeal to the nation to consider who is the real enemy,” he said. The sophistication of the assault, the duration of the siege and the attackers’ apparent knowledge of the base raised fears about the weaknesses in Pakistan’s military defences and stoked worries that the attackers had received inside information. The military is still reeling from the 2 May US raid on Bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, 35 miles north of Islamabad, fending off uncomfortable questions from Pakistanis about its defensive capabilities, as well as intense public anger towards the US incursion. Malik said the militants, armed with rifles and grenade launchers, approached the base from the Malir river, which runs behind it. Using wire cutters and a ladder, they scaled the perimeter fence and continued to the main base by exploiting a blind spot in surveillance camera coverage, suggesting detailed knowledge of the base layout. They headed straight for the aircraft hangars, where they fired rockets that destroyed a helicopter and two of the navy’s four Orion P-3C surveillance planes, valued at $36m (£22m) each. The Orions are a key part of Pakistan’s maritime defence and carry anti-submarine missiles that could be used against any Indian sea incursion. The US embassy, which initially denied any Americans were on the base, later confirmed that six contractors were present to service the Orions, two of which had been delivered last June . Dozens of navy commandos and army rangers responded to the incursion, triggering a gunfight that continued through Sunday night until Monday lunchtime. Commuters grew alarmed as they travelled to work amid bursts of gunfire from the bases and screaming ambulances that rushed in and out the main gate. Malik said 10 military personnel died in the operation – the army earlier said 13 were killed – including one sailor, two rangers, three firemen and three naval commandos. He paid special tribute to Lieutenant Syed Yaser Abbas who led the response force. “He sacrificed his life to save the assets of the Pakistan army,” he said. A Facebook memorial page has already been set up as a tribute to the dead lieutenant. Pictures of other slain soldiers – fresh-faced men in their early 20s, mostly – quickly surfaced through Twitter and on television channels. The security forces eventually cornered the assailants in one building, where at least three died, one in a suicide explosion. The navy said two other attackers were thought to have escaped. Malik claimed the assault had been planned in the Taliban heartland of Waziristan but did not specify how he knew this. He said the militants were in their early- to mid-20s, with trim beards, fair skin and “sharp features”. Oddly, he compared them to “characters out of a Star Wars movie”. It was the third major attack since Bin Laden’s death, following suicide bombings that killed 90 military recruits and targeted an American convoy in Peshawar. The fact that such a small team could hold commandos at bay for 18 hours caused widespread shock, raising fresh questions about the security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, believed to be scattered at secret bases across the country. Pakistan’s prime minister, Yusuf Raza Gilani, condemned the attack as a “cowardly act of terror”. But in a further sign of the confused debate on terrorism, several television commentators, many of them retired generals, claimed the raid was sponsored by a “foreign hand” – a euphemism for India, Israel or the US. Meanwhile in Afghanistan, the Afghan Taliban denied media reports that its leader Mullah Omar had been killed in Pakistan. “The esteemed Amir ul Momineen [leader of the faithful] is alive and well and is leading the mujahideen in all aspects,” said spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid. An Afghan intelligence official later told reporters that Omar had been arrested in Pakistan’s tribal belt. Pakistani intelligence said they had no information about Omar’s whereabouts. In Pakistan’s tribal belt, a US drone struck a vehicle near the Afghan border, killing four people, the latest in a surge of drone strikes since Bin Laden’s death. Pakistan Taliban Afghanistan Global terrorism Declan Walsh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …• Pakistani Taliban claim responsibility for ‘revenge’ raid • Ten military personnel killed in long gunfight Pakistani commandos regained control of a military base in central Karachi on Monday, ending an audacious 18-hour militant assault that killed 10 soldiers, destroyed two sensitive aircraft and dealt a humiliating blow to the army three weeks after the raid that killed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. Flames glowed over Pakistan’s largest city amid a cacophony of gunfire and explosions as up to six heavily-armed militants wreaked havoc until Monday lunchtime inside the Mehran base, just off a major thoroughfare. Six American military contractors and 11 Chinese nationals were present but escaped unharmed, officials said. The Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility, describing the attack as “revenge for the martyrdom of Osama bin Laden”. But analysts said a smaller jihadi group could also have been involved. Displaying pictures of the dead attackers on his mobile phone, the interior minister, Rehman Malik, called on Pakistanis to unite against the Taliban and al-Qaida. “I regret that some of us believe they are our friends and are praying for them. I appeal to the nation to consider who is the real enemy,” he said. The sophistication of the assault, the duration of the siege and the attackers’ apparent knowledge of the base raised fears about the weaknesses in Pakistan’s military defences and stoked worries that the attackers had received inside information. The military is still reeling from the 2 May US raid on Bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, 35 miles north of Islamabad, fending off uncomfortable questions from Pakistanis about its defensive capabilities, as well as intense public anger towards the US incursion. Malik said the militants, armed with rifles and grenade launchers, approached the base from the Malir river, which runs behind it. Using wire cutters and a ladder, they scaled the perimeter fence and continued to the main base by exploiting a blind spot in surveillance camera coverage, suggesting detailed knowledge of the base layout. They headed straight for the aircraft hangars, where they fired rockets that destroyed a helicopter and two of the navy’s four Orion P-3C surveillance planes, valued at $36m (£22m) each. The Orions are a key part of Pakistan’s maritime defence and carry anti-submarine missiles that could be used against any Indian sea incursion. The US embassy, which initially denied any Americans were on the base, later confirmed that six contractors were present to service the Orions, two of which had been delivered last June . Dozens of navy commandos and army rangers responded to the incursion, triggering a gunfight that continued through Sunday night until Monday lunchtime. Commuters grew alarmed as they travelled to work amid bursts of gunfire from the bases and screaming ambulances that rushed in and out the main gate. Malik said 10 military personnel died in the operation – the army earlier said 13 were killed – including one sailor, two rangers, three firemen and three naval commandos. He paid special tribute to Lieutenant Syed Yaser Abbas who led the response force. “He sacrificed his life to save the assets of the Pakistan army,” he said. A Facebook memorial page has already been set up as a tribute to the dead lieutenant. Pictures of other slain soldiers – fresh-faced men in their early 20s, mostly – quickly surfaced through Twitter and on television channels. The security forces eventually cornered the assailants in one building, where at least three died, one in a suicide explosion. The navy said two other attackers were thought to have escaped. Malik claimed the assault had been planned in the Taliban heartland of Waziristan but did not specify how he knew this. He said the militants were in their early- to mid-20s, with trim beards, fair skin and “sharp features”. Oddly, he compared them to “characters out of a Star Wars movie”. It was the third major attack since Bin Laden’s death, following suicide bombings that killed 90 military recruits and targeted an American convoy in Peshawar. The fact that such a small team could hold commandos at bay for 18 hours caused widespread shock, raising fresh questions about the security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, believed to be scattered at secret bases across the country. Pakistan’s prime minister, Yusuf Raza Gilani, condemned the attack as a “cowardly act of terror”. But in a further sign of the confused debate on terrorism, several television commentators, many of them retired generals, claimed the raid was sponsored by a “foreign hand” – a euphemism for India, Israel or the US. Meanwhile in Afghanistan, the Afghan Taliban denied media reports that its leader Mullah Omar had been killed in Pakistan. “The esteemed Amir ul Momineen [leader of the faithful] is alive and well and is leading the mujahideen in all aspects,” said spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid. An Afghan intelligence official later told reporters that Omar had been arrested in Pakistan’s tribal belt. Pakistani intelligence said they had no information about Omar’s whereabouts. In Pakistan’s tribal belt, a US drone struck a vehicle near the Afghan border, killing four people, the latest in a surge of drone strikes since Bin Laden’s death. Pakistan Taliban Afghanistan Global terrorism Declan Walsh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
State failed to protect Northern Ireland solicitor before her murder by loyalists but did not collude in her killing, says report The state failed to protect the high-profile solicitor Rosemary Nelson before her murder by loyalists in Northern Ireland but did not collude in her killing, a major public inquiry has found. The hard-hitting report found no evidence of a direct role in the car bomb attack 12 years ago, but it said it could not rule out the possibility of involvement by a rogue element of the security forces. The inquiry, which cost £46.5m, concluded that Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) officers publicly abused and assaulted the solicitor, and it believed police intelligence on the 40-year-old mother of three had leaked out. Before her death on 15 March 1999, the lawyer who worked on a number of controversial cases including those of suspected republican terrorists, had alleged police intimidation. Those claims gained international attention and the report found police had made “abusive and threatening remarks” about the solicitor. The public inquiry found that the state “failed to take reasonable and proportionate steps to safeguard the life of Rosemary Nelson”. Northern Ireland Police guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …State failed to protect Northern Ireland solicitor before her murder by loyalists but did not collude in her killing, says report The state failed to protect the high-profile solicitor Rosemary Nelson before her murder by loyalists in Northern Ireland but did not collude in her killing, a major public inquiry has found. The hard-hitting report found no evidence of a direct role in the car bomb attack 12 years ago, but it said it could not rule out the possibility of involvement by a rogue element of the security forces. The inquiry, which cost £46.5m, concluded that Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) officers publicly abused and assaulted the solicitor, and it believed police intelligence on the 40-year-old mother of three had leaked out. Before her death on 15 March 1999, the lawyer who worked on a number of controversial cases including those of suspected republican terrorists, had alleged police intimidation. Those claims gained international attention and the report found police had made “abusive and threatening remarks” about the solicitor. The public inquiry found that the state “failed to take reasonable and proportionate steps to safeguard the life of Rosemary Nelson”. Northern Ireland Police guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
The Indian prime minister arrives in Ethiopia to bolster economic and political links in a new ‘scramble for Africa’ India’s prime minister and dozens of business leaders began trade talks in Ethiopia on Monday as the Asian giant strives to catch up with China in what has been dubbed ” the new scramble for Africa “. Manmohan Singh received a red-carpet welcome as he led a delegation to the India-Africa summit in Addis Ababa, aiming to trumpet historical and cultural links with the continent in an effort to emerge from Beijing’s shadow. “The India-Africa partnership rests on three pillars of capacity building and skill transfer, trade and infrastructure development,” said Singh at the start of the six-day trip to Ethiopia and Tanzania. “Africa is emerging as a new growth pole of the world, while India is on a path of sustained and rapid economic development.” The trade meeting is to be attended by 15 African leaders. On its fringes was an India show comprising business seminars, cultural projects and a trade exhibition. Bilateral India-Africa trade has grown from about £620m in 2001 to £28.5bn in 2010. India’s commerce and industry minister, Anand Sharma, hopes it will reach £43bn by 2012. Some 250 Indian companies have invested, mainly in telecommunications and chemical and mining companies. But India remains about a decade behind its Asian rival. China says its two-way trade stands at £75bn, a 43.5% increase on the previous year, and up from just £620m in 1992 . It has built roads, bridges, railways and power stations in return for access to markets and resources. Brahma Chellaney, professor at the New Delhi-based Centre for Policy Research, told Reuters: “India is massively playing catch-up to China in Africa, and only in recent years is it trying to engage the continent in a serious way. But it is trying to build political and economic ties, and position itself as different to China, which has acquired the image of being a new imperial power.” The fierce competition between the pair for resources, minerals and food to fuel their turbo-charged economies has been likened by commentators to the so-called scramble for Africa among European countries in the 19th century. India is especially focused on energy. The country imports 70% of its oil and has turned to new suppliers such as Nigeria, Sudan and Angola to reduce its dependence on the Middle East. It also needs uranium for its ambitious civil nuclear programme. India is also looking to Africa to expand its diplomatic influence, especially its bid for a seat on an expanded UN security council. Defence ties with African states bordering the Indian Ocean could boost the fight against terrorism and piracy. India’s wooing of Africa includes aid, technology and education, such as a new centre in Uganda to train businesses about global markets, a diamond processing facility in Botswana, and assistance to cotton farmers in four of the continent’s poorest countries. Officials in New Delhi stress that India’s links with Africa are centuries old, bolstered by trade across the Indian Ocean and a million-strong Indian diaspora across Africa. Thousands of Africans have earned degrees from Indian universities and technological institutes on scholarships funded by the Indian government. Shyamal Gupta of the Confederation of Indian Industry told Associated Press: “India is interested in Africa not just because of its resources. It is also actively participating in the economic development of Africa.” But, like China before it, India has been criticised for turning a blind eye to human rights abuses and corruption. Its state-owned oil company has invested in Sudanese oil, and New Delhi avoided criticising the Khartoum government at the height of the Darfur crisis. Alex Vines, head of the Africa programme at the London-based thinktank Chatham House, which produced a report on India’s engagement in Africa, said: “India has enjoyed less western scrutiny over its Africa policy than China. India’s concern over Chinese expansion is acute and ever present. Its anxieties are not restricted to economic competition, but extend to security matters as well.” India Africa International trade China Ethiopia Tanzania David Smith guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …For those of us who lived through the Viet Nam era, Iraq is starting to resemble a certain quagmire: BAGHDAD —A wave of bombings hit the Iraqi capital Sunday, killing at least 21 people in a spate of violence that rocked nearly every corner of Baghdad and renewed questions about whether the country’s security forces can repel future internal threats. In a 90-minute period starting shortly after sunrise, more than a dozen explosions ripped through the city , unnerving ordinary Iraqis as well as officials from the United States and Iraq who had been heralding the overall decline in violence here in recent months. With the 46,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq preparing to withdraw by the end of the year, the sheer number of attacks Sunday raised further concerns about what awaits Baghdad. Gen. Jeffrey S. Buchanan, chief spokesman for the U.S. military in Iraq, said the violence “serves as a solemn reminder that there remains a determined and dangerous enemy.” Neither Buchanan nor Iraqi security officials would speculate about who may have been behind Sunday’s attacks. But several Baghdad officials said they fear the city is facing dual threats in the months leading up to the scheduled Dec. 31 withdrawal of U.S. forces. Mohammeed Alrubaye, a member of the Baghdad Provincial Council, said he fears that the violence is being fueled simultaneously by groups such as al-Qaeda and by other interests hoping to destabilize the Iraqi government to force a continued U.S. presence. “It’s kind of a two-shot situation,” he said. Do you suppose it’ll work?
Continue reading …