Estimated three-quarters of the 14m Egyptians who voted back election blueprint but calls for reform in Syria and Saudi Arabia meet show of force Egyptians have strongly endorsed amendments to the country’s constitution as aftershocks from the Arab spring revolts rumbled into the furthest reaches of the region. More than 77% of the estimated 14 million-plus people who voted supported changes that will provide a blueprint for parliamentary and presidential elections to be held within the next six months. Voting was mostly problem-free across the country, a significant result in a country that is emerging from more than three decades of dictatorship, when elections merely served to rubber-stamp ousted president Hosni Mubarak’s rule, and voter turn out was low. Elsewhere in the Arab world, tentative calls for democratic freedoms were met with force in both Saudi Arabia and Syria. In the Syrian town of Daraa, a second day of clashes with state security officers reportedly left one protester dead, in addition to the four reported killed on Saturday. A council building in the centre of town was burned down during the clashes. Some reports claimed it was a local headquarters of the Baath party, however they could not be verified. In Saudi Arabia, where demonstrations are banned, protesters tried to force their way into the interior ministry in Riyadh demanding the release of prisoners who they said had been detained for up to two years without trial. Around 15 people were arrested, but no serious violence was reported. However, the spectre of protests in the Saudi capital is something the Islamic kingdom’s leader, King Abdullah, has been trying to avoid as he battles to contain an uprising in Bahrain on his northern border. The Saudi government holds grave fears that the Shia protests in Bahrain could stir unrest in eastern Saudi Arabia, which is home to most of the 12% Shia population. Bahrain’s rulers have claimed to have uncovered a plot involving outside powers – an implicit reference to neighbouring Iran. The government asked Iranian diplomats to leave the tiny Gulf state and later called Lebanon’s Hezbollah a terrorist organisation that was destabilising the region and impinging on Bahrain’s sovereignty. The unusually vehement tones underscore the sensitivity in the Gulf, where all the petro-states have been under pressure from their citizens to introduce widespread reforms. Bahrain is in its second week of a three-month period of martial law, which was introduced after weeks of violent clashes between citizens and riot police. The clashes have taken on a sectarian tone that the kingdom is anxious to play down. Meanwhile, in the south of the Arabian Peninsula, the embattled leader of Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh, has sacked his cabinet in the latest of a spate of moves designed to keep power. The clean sweep came two days after a massacre of more than 40 unarmed pro-reform protesters in the capital, Sana’a, which has drawn widespread condemnation and placed further pressure on Saleh to step down after more than 30 years in office. The attacks on Libya have left the Arab world largely mute, unlike the opposition voiced before the last western assault on an Arab capital eight years ago. Amid unrest and rebellion across the Middle East, a clear distinction has been made between the invasion of Baghdad and the bombing of selected targets in Libya. The former was widely condemned by many states that have had no such reservations about the bombing of Gaddafi’s forces by US and European planes. A key reason for that appears to be the west’s stated desire not to overthrow Gaddafi but to leave his fate to be
Continue reading …
• Ofgem wants single tariff and no tie-ins for consumers • Watchdog wants suppliers to sell a fifth of generating capacity • Evidence companies put up bills quicker than they cut them in response to costs Britain’s electricity and gas suppliers have been ordered to reform their pricing and stop confusing customers, or face a formal referral to the Competition Commission. In a damning verdict on the UK energy market, industry regulator Ofgem said consumers are being “bamboozled”, with more than 300 different energy tariffs now available . It pledged to “sweep away this complexity”, so that households can easily compare prices and pick a good deal. The UK’s Big Six suppliers have just two months to accept wide-ranging reforms that will prevent them from continuing to fail customers, Ofgem warned. The regulator wants suppliers to sell off up to a fifth of their electricity generation capacity to inject much-needed competition into the industry. It also said that, for the first time, there was clear evidence that energy firms have adjusted their prices in response to rising costs more quickly than they reduced them when costs fell. “Ofgem’s proposals should force open the electricity and gas markets to ensure the market works effectively for consumers,” said Ofgem’s chairman, Lord Mogg. “The energy supply companies have eight weeks in which to engage constructively with Ofgem’s proposals. If firms frustrate reforms they risk ending up at the Competition Commission (CC). This is a holistic package of changes.” Three years ago, Ofgem conducted a probe into the energy market , which resulted in new measures that were meant to improve competition. It admitted on Monday that the industry’s response to the 2008 investigation had been “disappointingly poor”. It now wants to tighten licence conditions, so that suppliers comply with the spirit, as well as the letter, of the law. “Consumers must have confidence that energy companies are playing fair at a time when they are being asked to foot the £200bn bill to pay for the investment Britain needs to ensure secure and sustainable energy supplies,” said Ofgem’s chief executive, Alistair Buchanan. Britain’s electricity and gas market was fully deregulated in the late 1990s , giving consumers the ability to take their energy from a range of suppliers. More than a decade on, though, the landscape is dominated by six companies – British Gas, EDF Energy, E.ON, Npower, Scottish and Southern Energy and Scottish Power. According to Ofgem, these companies reap higher profits from customers who take both electricity and gas – the “dual-fuel” option – from the company which supplied them before deregulation. It hopes that forcing companies to auction off some of their generation capacity will help new firms to enter the market. On pricing, Ofgem proposes that suppliers would only be allowed to offer one single domestic tariff for each payment method, for so-called “evergreen” products which do not tie consumers into a fixed-term. This would make it easy to compare the suppliers’ “per unit” price. The regulator also announced that it has launched an investigation into Scottish Power over concerns that consumers are being frustrated when they try to switch to another supplier. It is already investigating how British Gas, EDF Energy and npower deal with consumers’ complaints, and is also conducting a separate probe into allegations of mis-selling by EDF Energy, npower, Scottish Power, and Scottish and Southern Energy. Ofgem’s proposals will now enter a consultation period, which will close on 1 June 2011. Utilities Energy industry Energy bills Consumer affairs Household bills EDF Energy Scottish and Southern Energy Graeme Wearden guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …• Ofgem wants single tariff and no tie-ins for consumers • Watchdog wants suppliers to sell a fifth of generating capacity • Evidence companies put up bills quicker than they cut them in response to costs Britain’s electricity and gas suppliers have been ordered to reform their pricing and stop confusing customers, or face a formal referral to the Competition Commission. In a damning verdict on the UK energy market, industry regulator Ofgem said consumers are being “bamboozled”, with more than 300 different energy tariffs now available . It pledged to “sweep away this complexity”, so that households can easily compare prices and pick a good deal. The UK’s Big Six suppliers have just two months to accept wide-ranging reforms that will prevent them from continuing to fail customers, Ofgem warned. The regulator wants suppliers to sell off up to a fifth of their electricity generation capacity to inject much-needed competition into the industry. It also said that, for the first time, there was clear evidence that energy firms have adjusted their prices in response to rising costs more quickly than they reduced them when costs fell. “Ofgem’s proposals should force open the electricity and gas markets to ensure the market works effectively for consumers,” said Ofgem’s chairman, Lord Mogg. “The energy supply companies have eight weeks in which to engage constructively with Ofgem’s proposals. If firms frustrate reforms they risk ending up at the Competition Commission (CC). This is a holistic package of changes.” Three years ago, Ofgem conducted a probe into the energy market , which resulted in new measures that were meant to improve competition. It admitted on Monday that the industry’s response to the 2008 investigation had been “disappointingly poor”. It now wants to tighten licence conditions, so that suppliers comply with the spirit, as well as the letter, of the law. “Consumers must have confidence that energy companies are playing fair at a time when they are being asked to foot the £200bn bill to pay for the investment Britain needs to ensure secure and sustainable energy supplies,” said Ofgem’s chief executive, Alistair Buchanan. Britain’s electricity and gas market was fully deregulated in the late 1990s , giving consumers the ability to take their energy from a range of suppliers. More than a decade on, though, the landscape is dominated by six companies – British Gas, EDF Energy, E.ON, Npower, Scottish and Southern Energy and Scottish Power. According to Ofgem, these companies reap higher profits from customers who take both electricity and gas – the “dual-fuel” option – from the company which supplied them before deregulation. It hopes that forcing companies to auction off some of their generation capacity will help new firms to enter the market. On pricing, Ofgem proposes that suppliers would only be allowed to offer one single domestic tariff for each payment method, for so-called “evergreen” products which do not tie consumers into a fixed-term. This would make it easy to compare the suppliers’ “per unit” price. The regulator also announced that it has launched an investigation into Scottish Power over concerns that consumers are being frustrated when they try to switch to another supplier. It is already investigating how British Gas, EDF Energy and npower deal with consumers’ complaints, and is also conducting a separate probe into allegations of mis-selling by EDF Energy, npower, Scottish Power, and Scottish and Southern Energy. Ofgem’s proposals will now enter a consultation period, which will close on 1 June 2011. Utilities Energy industry Energy bills Consumer affairs Household bills EDF Energy Scottish and Southern Energy Graeme Wearden guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
• Coalition forces launched a second wave of strikes • Dispute over whether civilians have been killed • Italy joins France, US, Britain and others • Gaddafi officials announce a fresh ceasefire Follow live updates here 9.34am: The EU’s top foreign policy official is trying to play down cracks in the coalition. Catherine Ashton says the head of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, was misquoted when he expressed alarm at reported civilians deaths in the first raids. “Moussa was misquoted, as I understand it,” said Ashton, without elaborating on what she thought what Moussa actually said. Shortly after the air strikes began, Moussa yesterday told reporters in Cairo that, “What happened differs from the no-fly zone objectives. What we want is civilians’ protection not shelling more civilians.” 9.25am: British commanders have insisted that the targets so far have been “carefully selected to avoid civilian casualties”. Earlier we heard France say it had no evidence of any civilian casualties , apparently in response to the Arab League calling for an emergency meeting and claiming coalition strikes had “led to the deaths and injuries of many Libyan civilians”. The Guardian’s security and defence correspondent, Nick Hopkins, has been speaking to Air Vice Marshall Phil Osborn, who said the military are “hugely aware of the risks”. “The targeting would have been highly detailed. We will not proceed against targets if the risk is deemed to be unacceptable. The risk of collateral damage is at the forefront of our minds.” Major General John Lorimer told Nick: “Targets were carefully selected to avoid civilian casualties and to strike at key military instillations in Libya.” 9.12am: The Guardian’s Chris McGreal is at “what is now the front line”, 9km outside Ajdabiya, having travelled with rejuvenated rebel forces from Benghazi. He says rebel forces have gained 150km of ground , and a substantial amount of morale, since coalition air strikes began on Saturday morning. He says Gaddafi’s forces have been driven all the way back to the edge of Ajdabiya – having previously been on the outskirts of Benghazi – but are repelling any further advance by the rebels. There definitely is continuing resistance. There have been a number of incoming tank rounds from Gaddafi’s forces, which suggests that they’ve still got tanks, they may still have some rockets. But above us now we can hear planes, which we have to assume are coalition planes, and we have heard a number of very deep explosions in the past few minutes which suggests those are attacks by coalition forces, possibly on those same tanks which were shelling us just a few minutes earlier. Chris says: “If the coalition air forces are now turning their attention to those Gaddafi forces around Ajdabiya I can only imagine they’re going to meet the same fate as they did on the edge of Benghazi, which was fairly comprehensive destruction”. 9.06am: Reports of air strikes on or around Gaddafi-held Ajdabiya in the last few minutes. More shortly. 8.50am: I’ve just been speaking to the Guardian’s Ian Black , who is in Tripoli and has more on the alleged bombing of Gaddafi’s compound in the capital by coalition forces. The compound was famously bombed in 1986 by the US in retaliation for a terrorist attack blamed on Libya against US troops in Germany, which gives a “symbolic significance” to the strike, Ian says. Something happened, certainly, in the centre of Tripoli last night I could certainly see a substantial column of smoke rising from the general direction of it, maybe a couple of miles from where I am. There was a lot of very, very loud, but pretty erratic, anti-aircraft fire going up around the same time, and later on in the middle of the night some reporters were taken to the compound to see the damage. Ian says journalists were shown a three storey building that was “in ruins”, but there was no smoke or flames at the scene. He adds: “Whatever happened has been used quite energetically by the Libyan propaganda system to present its view of what is going on. It’s hard to say what exactly did happen.” 8.27am: The head of the Gulf’s main political bloc, the Gulf Cooperation Council, has said Qatar and the United Arab Emirates remain part of the international military coalition. Abdul Rahman bin Hamad al-Attiyah said the two states are part of the coalition, despite criticism from Arab League’s Secretary-General Amr Moussa that the attacks had killed civilians. Al-Attiyah did not clarify Qatar and the UAE’s role or say whether they have taken part in air strikes. He spoke on the sidelines of a regional security meeting in Abu Dhabi. The GCC includes Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. 8.13am: Yesterday we heard that supporters of Gaddafi had formed a human shield around his compound in Tripoli, with men, women and children singing songs against the rebel “germs”. But it is likely such fervour does not quite sum up the mood of all those in the capital, with many tweets suggesting less warmth towards the Libyan leader. @OurLibya Tripoli’s silence is not a sign of consent. it is muted by Gaddafi brutality.I live in Tripoli and I know what I am talking about.#Libya 8am: Good morning, welcome to the Guardian’s live coverage of the continuing military intervention in Libya, as Gaddafi remains in power. • Coalition forces have launched the second night of air strikes on Libya after halting the advance of Muammar Gaddafi’s forces on Benghazi and targeting air defences to allow their planes to enforce the no-fly zone. Vice Admiral Bill Gortney, director of the US military’s Joint Staff, told reporters there had been no new Libyan air activity or radar emissions, but a significant decrease in Libyan air surveillance, since the strikes began on Saturday. Benghazi was not yet free from threat, Gortney said, but Gaddafi’s forces in the area were in distress and “suffering from isolation and confusion” after the air assaults. • France – the first country to bomb Libya on Saturday – said on Monday morning it has no evidence of civilians being killed, contradicting the Arab League, which had said the strikes had “led to the deaths and injuries of many Libyan civilians”. A Libyan government health official said 64 people had been killed by Western bombardment on Saturday and Sunday morning, while the Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa called for an emergency meeting of the group’s 22 states to discuss Libya. He requested a report on the bombardment, which he said had “led to the deaths and injuries of many Libyan civilians”. “What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians,” Egypt’s state news agency quoted him as saying. French government spokesman Francois Baroin told television Canal+ that “there is no information of killed civilians that the French command is aware of”. • Italy joined the attacks on Sunday night, as Gaddafi officials claimed the Libyan leader’s Tripoli compound had been targeted. Libyan officials took Western reporters to Gaddafi’s compound in Tripoli – a sprawling complex that houses his private quarters as well as military barracks, anti-aircraft batteries and other installations – to show what they claimed was the site of a missile attack two hours earlier. “It was a barbaric bombing,” said government spokesman Mussa Ibrahim, showing pieces of shrapnel that he said came from the missile. “This contradicts American and Western [statements] … that it is not their target to attack this place.” The Guardian has been unable to confirm the damage was caused by coalition air strikes. • The onslaught resumed last night despite a ceasefire announced by the Libyan authorities at 7pm UK time. “We, the Popular Social Leadership of Libya, recommend to the armed forces to announce an immediate ceasefire to all military units,” said regime spokesman Ibrahim Moussa in a pre-prepared statement. Earlier in the day, the Libyan dictator had threatened “a long war”, and his forces launched a fresh assault on rebels in Misrata, where one resident in the town said pro-Gaddafi boats in the port were preventing aid from reaching the town. Libya Arab and Middle East protests Protest Muammar Gaddafi Military Adam Gabbatt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …• Coalition forces launched a second wave of strikes • Dispute over whether civilians have been killed • Italy joins France, US, Britain and others • Gaddafi officials announce a fresh ceasefire Follow live updates here 9.34am: The EU’s top foreign policy official is trying to play down cracks in the coalition. Catherine Ashton says the head of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, was misquoted when he expressed alarm at reported civilians deaths in the first raids. “Moussa was misquoted, as I understand it,” said Ashton, without elaborating on what she thought what Moussa actually said. Shortly after the air strikes began, Moussa yesterday told reporters in Cairo that, “What happened differs from the no-fly zone objectives. What we want is civilians’ protection not shelling more civilians.” 9.25am: British commanders have insisted that the targets so far have been “carefully selected to avoid civilian casualties”. Earlier we heard France say it had no evidence of any civilian casualties , apparently in response to the Arab League calling for an emergency meeting and claiming coalition strikes had “led to the deaths and injuries of many Libyan civilians”. The Guardian’s security and defence correspondent, Nick Hopkins, has been speaking to Air Vice Marshall Phil Osborn, who said the military are “hugely aware of the risks”. “The targeting would have been highly detailed. We will not proceed against targets if the risk is deemed to be unacceptable. The risk of collateral damage is at the forefront of our minds.” Major General John Lorimer told Nick: “Targets were carefully selected to avoid civilian casualties and to strike at key military instillations in Libya.” 9.12am: The Guardian’s Chris McGreal is at “what is now the front line”, 9km outside Ajdabiya, having travelled with rejuvenated rebel forces from Benghazi. He says rebel forces have gained 150km of ground , and a substantial amount of morale, since coalition air strikes began on Saturday morning. He says Gaddafi’s forces have been driven all the way back to the edge of Ajdabiya – having previously been on the outskirts of Benghazi – but are repelling any further advance by the rebels. There definitely is continuing resistance. There have been a number of incoming tank rounds from Gaddafi’s forces, which suggests that they’ve still got tanks, they may still have some rockets. But above us now we can hear planes, which we have to assume are coalition planes, and we have heard a number of very deep explosions in the past few minutes which suggests those are attacks by coalition forces, possibly on those same tanks which were shelling us just a few minutes earlier. Chris says: “If the coalition air forces are now turning their attention to those Gaddafi forces around Ajdabiya I can only imagine they’re going to meet the same fate as they did on the edge of Benghazi, which was fairly comprehensive destruction”. 9.06am: Reports of air strikes on or around Gaddafi-held Ajdabiya in the last few minutes. More shortly. 8.50am: I’ve just been speaking to the Guardian’s Ian Black , who is in Tripoli and has more on the alleged bombing of Gaddafi’s compound in the capital by coalition forces. The compound was famously bombed in 1986 by the US in retaliation for a terrorist attack blamed on Libya against US troops in Germany, which gives a “symbolic significance” to the strike, Ian says. Something happened, certainly, in the centre of Tripoli last night I could certainly see a substantial column of smoke rising from the general direction of it, maybe a couple of miles from where I am. There was a lot of very, very loud, but pretty erratic, anti-aircraft fire going up around the same time, and later on in the middle of the night some reporters were taken to the compound to see the damage. Ian says journalists were shown a three storey building that was “in ruins”, but there was no smoke or flames at the scene. He adds: “Whatever happened has been used quite energetically by the Libyan propaganda system to present its view of what is going on. It’s hard to say what exactly did happen.” 8.27am: The head of the Gulf’s main political bloc, the Gulf Cooperation Council, has said Qatar and the United Arab Emirates remain part of the international military coalition. Abdul Rahman bin Hamad al-Attiyah said the two states are part of the coalition, despite criticism from Arab League’s Secretary-General Amr Moussa that the attacks had killed civilians. Al-Attiyah did not clarify Qatar and the UAE’s role or say whether they have taken part in air strikes. He spoke on the sidelines of a regional security meeting in Abu Dhabi. The GCC includes Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. 8.13am: Yesterday we heard that supporters of Gaddafi had formed a human shield around his compound in Tripoli, with men, women and children singing songs against the rebel “germs”. But it is likely such fervour does not quite sum up the mood of all those in the capital, with many tweets suggesting less warmth towards the Libyan leader. @OurLibya Tripoli’s silence is not a sign of consent. it is muted by Gaddafi brutality.I live in Tripoli and I know what I am talking about.#Libya 8am: Good morning, welcome to the Guardian’s live coverage of the continuing military intervention in Libya, as Gaddafi remains in power. • Coalition forces have launched the second night of air strikes on Libya after halting the advance of Muammar Gaddafi’s forces on Benghazi and targeting air defences to allow their planes to enforce the no-fly zone. Vice Admiral Bill Gortney, director of the US military’s Joint Staff, told reporters there had been no new Libyan air activity or radar emissions, but a significant decrease in Libyan air surveillance, since the strikes began on Saturday. Benghazi was not yet free from threat, Gortney said, but Gaddafi’s forces in the area were in distress and “suffering from isolation and confusion” after the air assaults. • France – the first country to bomb Libya on Saturday – said on Monday morning it has no evidence of civilians being killed, contradicting the Arab League, which had said the strikes had “led to the deaths and injuries of many Libyan civilians”. A Libyan government health official said 64 people had been killed by Western bombardment on Saturday and Sunday morning, while the Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa called for an emergency meeting of the group’s 22 states to discuss Libya. He requested a report on the bombardment, which he said had “led to the deaths and injuries of many Libyan civilians”. “What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians,” Egypt’s state news agency quoted him as saying. French government spokesman Francois Baroin told television Canal+ that “there is no information of killed civilians that the French command is aware of”. • Italy joined the attacks on Sunday night, as Gaddafi officials claimed the Libyan leader’s Tripoli compound had been targeted. Libyan officials took Western reporters to Gaddafi’s compound in Tripoli – a sprawling complex that houses his private quarters as well as military barracks, anti-aircraft batteries and other installations – to show what they claimed was the site of a missile attack two hours earlier. “It was a barbaric bombing,” said government spokesman Mussa Ibrahim, showing pieces of shrapnel that he said came from the missile. “This contradicts American and Western [statements] … that it is not their target to attack this place.” The Guardian has been unable to confirm the damage was caused by coalition air strikes. • The onslaught resumed last night despite a ceasefire announced by the Libyan authorities at 7pm UK time. “We, the Popular Social Leadership of Libya, recommend to the armed forces to announce an immediate ceasefire to all military units,” said regime spokesman Ibrahim Moussa in a pre-prepared statement. Earlier in the day, the Libyan dictator had threatened “a long war”, and his forces launched a fresh assault on rebels in Misrata, where one resident in the town said pro-Gaddafi boats in the port were preventing aid from reaching the town. Libya Arab and Middle East protests Protest Muammar Gaddafi Military Adam Gabbatt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
• World Bank says economy will take years to recover • Officials update casualty estimates • Fukushima plant electricity restored The human and financial cost of the tsunami continues to rise, after police estimates showed more than 18,000 people have died in the disaster and the World Bank said it may cost Japan as much as £145bn to repair the damage. The gloom was lifted slightly by news of further progress at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, where engineers have connected power cables to three reactors and plan to test the pumps soon. The electricity supply has been restored to another reactor, but the No 3 and No 4 units are still giving cause for concern. Engineers hope to connect those reactors to power supplies on Tuesday, the public broadcaster NHK said. The nuclear emergency is far from over, however. On Monday, it was reported that the No 3 reactor had experienced a surge in pressure that may require workers to vent radioactive steam, a tactic that set off hydrogen gas explosions at the facility last week. The government’s chief spokesman, Yukio Edano, conceded that the buildup of pressure was unsettling. “We knew that even if things went smoothly, there would be twists and turns,” he told reporters. “At the moment, we are not so optimistic that there will be a breakthrough.” That is causing concern because the reactor is the only one of the six that contains plutonium-uranium mixed oxide fuel – or MOX – and would release highly toxic plutonium in the event of a meltdown. The fuel in the other reactors is uranium. The country’s self-defence forces resumed work on Monday to cool down the No 4 and No 3 reactors with seawater. Japan’s nuclear safety agency said it did not believe much water from the two reactors had seeped underground. Radiation leaks from stricken reactors continued to spread through the region’s food supply, though at levels too low to endanger health. The agency acknowledged that workers at the site risked inhaling radioactive dust, but said it had so far found no evidence of that happening. Radiation in excess of government standards was found in canola and chrysanthemum greens grown in the Fukushima area, a day after authorities reported that milk and spinach had been contaminated, as well as tap water in Tokyo, 150 miles away. The health ministry advised 6,000 villagers in Iitate, 19 miles from the power plant, not to drink tap water after tests revealed it contained abnormal, though not harmful, amounts of iodine-131, a radioactive substance. “We think we have arrived at the point where we are very close to getting the situation under control,” the deputy cabinet secretary, Tetsuro Fukuyama, said. Graham Andrew, a senior official of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said: “There have been some positive developments in the last 24 hours but overall the situation remains very serious.” The US health secretary, Steven Chu, told CNN that he believed the worst of the nuclear crisis was over, but added, “I don’t want to make a blanket statement”. Attention is turning to the humanitarian crisis on Japan’s north-east coast and the cost of the cleanup and reconstruction operations. The World Bank said on Monday that it could take Japan five years, and cost between £75bn and £145bn – equivalent to 4% of Japan’s GDP – to overcome the catastrophe, while private insurers face a combined bill of up to $33bn. “Damage to housing and infrastructure has been unprecedented,” the bank said. “Growth should pick up though in subsequent quarters as reconstruction efforts, which could last five years, accelerate.” The bank said damage from the tsunami could also affect trade in the region. The price of some Japanese-made memory chips have risen 20% because of disruption to production lines, while car plants in Asia face shortages of auto parts. “Disruption to production networks, especially in automotive and electronics industries, could continue to pose problems,” the World Bank said. “Japan is a major producer of parts, components and capital goods which supply east Asia’s production chains.” While hundreds of workers battle to render the nuclear plant safe, Japan continues to count its dead. Police estimates show more than about 18,400 died– 10,500 in Miyagi prefecture alone. A further 452,000 people are living in shelters. “It is very distressing as we recover more bodies day after day,” said police spokesman Hitoshi Sugawara. Japan disaster Japan World Bank Global economy Economics Justin McCurry guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Culture secretary to consider extending public interest laws which could mean News Corporation facing further sanctions Jeremy Hunt is to consider extending the public interest rules that govern the UK media industry so that Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation could face further sanctions if it becomes progressively more dominant without making any more British acquisitions. The culture secretary will next month publish a discussion document to kickstart a consultation with the media industry ahead of a green paper towards the end of this year. Legislation will follow in the second half of this parliament. Hunt – speaking in an interview with MediaGuardian – said he was sympathetic to a problem identified by Ofcom, the communications regulator, when it examined News Corp’s proposed £8bn buyout of BSkyB under the public interest tests. The tests, Ofcom said, could only be applied in a merger situation under current law. Hunt said Ofcom had “made an important point” because the public interest provision could not be invoked “because of a media organisation’s economic growth”. He said extending the rules is something “we should look at” in the consultation. Earlier this month Hunt proposed that Murdoch should be allowed to go through with the buyout on the condition that Sky News is spun off, with News Corp only allowed to own up to 39%. Monday is the last day for critics to lodge objections to that plan. Those hostile to the deal – including the companies behind the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail – argue that News Corp will become progressively more dominant in Britain. Sky is growing rapidly, and by 2015 News Corp is expected to have a UK turnover of about £9bn, more than double that of the next biggest media group, the BBC. A YouGov poll published Monday conducted for online pressure group Avaaz, which is also opposed to the merger, concluded that nearly 60% of the public thought Murdoch had too much influence on British politics, while 64% said that the merger will give News Corp too much power over the media. Only 5% of the 2300 people polled backed the deal. However, despite the olive branch, Hunt robustly defended his decision, arguing that he had to base it on the “concentration of media ownership, not about market power” – which was why the only appropriate remedy was to keep Sky News separate from the Times and the Sun. He indicated that the controversy over phone hacking by private investigators employed by the News of the World did not influence his decision, but noted that he expected deputy assistant commissioner Sue Akers heading up the latest investigation for the Metropolitan police would do a “thorough job”. The consultation document Hunt will launch next month will also set out three areas for discussion starting with how to foster innovation in areas such as games, telemedicine, home education and “micro-broadcasting” or local television. It will also include a section on deregulation with the minister saying there was a “a need to look at” the rules governing how ITV is able to sell advertising space. But deregulation will not cover “taste and decency” or quantity of advertising broadcasters are allowed to air. The final part is to create a coherent framework of content control that could see online video treated more like television. He said he was concerned about internet content streamed onto a home television, which he said “feels like TV” but is not regulated by decency rules. Jeremy Hunt Rupert Murdoch BSkyB News Corporation Newspapers Ofcom Media law Mergers and acquisitions Regulators Dan Sabbagh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …McCain and Lieberman Criticize Obama Administration For Waiting Too Long to Go Into Libya
March 20, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media (h/t Heather at VideoCafe) Everybody’s favorite Sunday news show guest loves to play concern troll over how President Obama is handling his presidency. Because you know, Grampy McSame would have handled all of this *so* much better. With his fake sincere expression and his Mr. Rogers voice, along with back up from BFF Joe Lieberman, Mr. Prisoner of War is only to eager to lead the narrative on Libya into serious mission creep from enforcing the No-Fly Zone to taking out Gadhafi and nation-building once again. If only Obama had listened to their war mongering cheerleading earlier. CROWLEY: Did President Obama wait too long on the U.N. to act? MCCAIN: He waited too long. There is no doubt in my mind about it. But now it is what it is. And we need now to support him and the efforts that our military are going to make. And I regret that we didn’t act much more quickly and we could have, but that’s not the point now. The point now is let’s get behind this effort and do everything we can to support it. Golly gee whillikers, Candy, maybe that inadequate, ineffectual POTUS–who is not nearly as strong as *I* would have been in office, by the way–had listened to me earlier and committed us to yet another front in the Middle East even though we’re so broke that my party makes a point of saying we can’t afford to take care of our own citizens. WTH??? Explain to me why anyone should give a crap what this also-ran has to say about foreign policy? The same guy who said that walking in Baghdad was as safe as walking down Main Street USA , as long as you were protected by 100 American soldiers, with three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships overhead as well as a bulletproof vest and helmet. In fact, McCain just pulls some old chestnuts from the old Iraq playbook: And I say to my friends in the congress who are nervous about another intervention, I’m confident we can prevail. And I’m confident that if we hadn’t have taken this action that the consequences of failure would have reverberated for years. Well, ain’t that sweet with other people’s children? Joe “Never Met A Neocon Meme I Didn’t Love” Lieberman counsels us that this could take a while, but we could get lucky: I think we’ve got to be ready for a longer battle to get him out of there. But it could go more quickly. Because his troops could lose their confidence and abandon him. Military geniuses, the both of them. What a great plan for more of America’s blood and treasure. CROWLEY: In late February, I spoke with senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman from Cairo during the early stages of the uprising in Libya. During that interview, they said they supported imposing a no- fly zone. Three weeks later, the U.N. approved that no-fly zone which has now effectively been established. Before Congress left this weekend, I spoke with the senators from Washington. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) CROWLEY: You all, when I talked to you, called for that no-fly zone. And I think the question that is really out there now is, is it too late? MCCAIN: I hope it’s not too late. And I believe it’s not too late. Obviously, if we had taken this step a couple weeks ago a no- fly zone would probably have been enough. Now a no-fly zone is not enough. There needs to be other efforts made. And I want to preclude ground troops, U.S. or allies ground troops, that is not what we are talking about. But there is a whole lot of things that can be done. Also, we’ve got to get our assets over there. The aircraft carrier is a long ways away. Aircraft carriers should have been on station a long time ago. But I’m — I think the boost of the morale, I think that the — some of the enforcement that you’re going to see from ourselves and our allies including a couple of the Arab countries, I think three of them that I think we can turn this tide. I think the next five or six days we’ll know. LIEBERMAN: I think if the world had acted earlier, you know, three or four weeks since the conflict in Libya turned bloody, is not a long period of time. But in a conflict, it is a long period of time. Because Gadhafi… CROWLEY: Timing is all. LIEBERMAN: Yes, Gadhafi had so much of an advantage in terms of logistics, command and control, weapons, that time helped him every day while the world refused to make the decision. I think earlier on, maybe a no-fly zone could have done it. Now it’s clear from the U.N. Security Council resolution that has passed that the nations of the world have been authorized by the United Nations to take whatever actions are necessary to protect civilians. You know, Gadhafi the other night said, and it’s so typical of him, my troops will go house-to-house, we’ll go door to door, we’ll go room to room to find the enemies of Libya. And that is exactly what I worry about, that there will be a humanitarian disaster. So we got to — it’s late. But it’s not too late if we act quickly together. MCCAIN: And the key to it, Candy, is that momentum was all on the side of Gadhafi until that U.N. vote. Now time is not on Gadhafi’s side. If he doesn’t succeed in a relatively short period of time, he’ll be driven back and over time, I believe, defeated. CROWLEY: We’re going to play you something that Under Secretary of State of Burns had to stay on Capitol Hill earlier this week and get your reaction. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) WILLIAM BURNS, UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS: I think there is also a very real danger that if Gadhafi is successful on the ground that you also face, you know, a number of other considerable risks as well, the dangers of him returning to terrorism and violent extremism himself, the dangers of the turmoil that he could help create at a very critical moment elsewhere in the region. (END VIDEO CLIP) CROWLEY: He was at the Senate Foreign… (CROSSTALK) MCCAIN: He’s exactly right. And the other aspect of this, if Gadhafi succeeds, it sends a message to every other dictator in the Arab world and outside the Arab world, if your people rise up in search of democracy, go ahead and clamp down and kill as many as you need, you need to in order to stay in power. That’s the message. That would be a terrible message to send to people who are aspiring to freedom and democracy. CROWLEY: Senator, you have this statement by the under secretary. You’ve had the president of the United States saying Gadhafi has to go. This is pre-U.N. vote, but nonetheless, you’ve had the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, saying Gadhafi has to go. So it seems to me this no-fly mission is something far more than that. It’s bent on getting him out. LIEBERMAN: Well, you’re absolutely right. Look, and the first thing I want to say is once the president of the United States says as President Obama did that Gadhafi must go, if we don’t work with our allies to make sure Gadhafi does go, America’s credibility and prestige suffers all over the world. I had the opportunity… CROWLEY: So, we can’t afford to let him stay in office? LIEBERMAN: We can’t afford to let him stay in office. I want to say, too, that the first people that asked John and me to please do something to help the opposition to Gadhafi in Libya were the students, the young people, who led the uprising in Egypt, because they see Gadhafi’s targets in Libya as their brothers and sisters in this Arab spring. And if Gadhafi survives, the Arab spring maybe comes to an end, at least it doesn’t move beyond Tunisia and Egypt. MCCAIN: On a tactical level, he is — Gadhafi’s acting land, sea and air. And we can take out the air and sea component of that very quickly. This is ideal terrain for air power. This is made for aviators. And so I think with significant air assets we can have a really big impact. Now, how quickly we can move back and get him out, I think it’s going to be a matter of time. CROWLEY: And by that, you mean months? Because what you’re doing really is… MCCAIN: I don’t know, because you see, there’s so much got to go with morale and momentum. I think that if it looks like to the people around Gadhafi and the average soldier that is now fighting for Gadhafi that it’s a matter of time, I think it’s possible — I emphasize possible — you could see a rapid situation, a rapid deterioration on the side of Gadhafi. LIEBERMAN: I think we’ve got to be ready for a longer battle to get him out of there. But it could go more quickly. Because his troops could lose their confidence and abandon him. MCCAIN: And I am confident in the military capabilities that we have as well as other capabilities. For example, jamming his communications. For example, get in some much needed weapons, getting some people trained. There’s a lot of things we can do beside just the air power component of it. So I have great confidence in our capabilities, the most mightiest nation in the world is now matched up against a third rate or fourth rate power. CROWLEY: Let me ask you a bottom line question here, would it have been better — there are so many people from Libya, our reporters included, who have said, he just needed a — he was just ready to go. And then there was this two-week delay while we waited for the U.N. to do something. Did President Obama wait too long on the U.N. to act? MCCAIN: He waited too long. There is no doubt in my mind about it. But now it is what it is. And we need now to support him and the efforts that our military are going to make. And I regret that we didn’t act much more quickly and we could have, but that’s not the point now. The point now is let’s get behind this effort and do everything we can to support it. And I say to my friends in the congress who are nervous about another intervention, I’m confident we can prevail. And I’m confident that if we hadn’t have taken this action that the consequences of failure would have reverberated for years.
Continue reading …
Sex and the rise of Nazism in 30s Berlin provided a resonant backdrop for Christopher Isherwood’s story of self-discovery Two things were going on in Berlin in the early 1930s. First, it was the sex tourism capital of Europe, a paradise of hedonism particularly favoured by gay young English gentlemen of a literary persuasion. And second, Nazism was gathering momentum, inexorably. The two didn’t always sit comfortably together. Imagine it, one minute a handsome young man called Caspar is doing press-ups for you on the jetty, bulging rather splendidly in his tight trunks. And the next time you see him he’s in a flipping SS uniform! True, he does look simply marvellous in it, but it is all rather worrying. Christopher and His Kind (BBC2, Saturday) follows a young Christopher Isherwood, played by Matt Smith, from the starchiness of his domineering mother and the greyness of 30s Britain to join his friend and sometime lover WH Auden in Berlin. Isherwood is there to decide who and what he is. And for the boys, which Kevin Elyot’s adaptation of Isherwood’s own memoir doesn’t shy away from – there’s an awful lot of Wie geht’s Deinen Vater going on in the cellar bars and clubs. Blimey. I was worried about it to start with – the drama, not the sex (which I’m obviously totally fine with). On the train through Europe, Isherwood meets a seedy gentleman who turns out to be Gerald Hamilton. “Are you going all the way?” he asks Isherwood. “Excuse me!” says Christopher, taken aback. Are you going all the way? What is this – Carry On Up Gay Berlin? I needn’t have worried, that was an uncharacteristic lapse into saucy postcard innuendo. Christopher and His Kind is much better than that, a lot of which has to do with Smith’s mesmerising performance. As his Doctor Who predecessor David Tennant has done, Smith shows here that his range stretches way beyond time travel. Excellent as he is as the Doctor, that is a strangely asexual role. There’s nothing asexual about this one. But it’s more than pure smut; Smith is appealingly rakish, thoroughly disreputable, charming, posh, clever and funny – there’s something of John Hurt’s Quentin Crisp about him, a lovely portrayal. Smith’s isn’t the only fine performance here. Toby Jones is a fabulously pervy Hamilton. The sardonic Pip Carter has the best lines (“I do loathe the sea, it’s so wet, and sloppy”), as he should do, being Auden. Lindsay Duncan is formidable as Isherwood’s mum. Young Perry Millward is great as his awkward, twitching younger brother (extraordinary hair he’s got – side-parted, high and solid, almost like a geographical feature). And Imogen Poots is simply marvellous darling as luvvie Jean Ross, the inspiration for Liza Minelli’s Sally Bowles character in Cabaret. It’s a long time since I saw Cabaret, but I think I like this better; there isn’t all that infernal singing. Well, Poots does do a couple of songs – rather well – but it doesn’t intrude. I’m not good with musicals. What Christopher and His Kind does do as well as Cabaret did in 1972 is to capture a place and a time – an extra-ordinary place at an extraordinary time of transition, between the dying embers of the bohemian Weimar Republic and the fascist fist of the Nazis. And set against that ominous backdrop is a tender, touching, personal story of self- discovery. Brilliant, top drama, well done. Niall Ferguson also knits the small in with the big, the personal with the momentous, in his Civilization: is the West History? (Channel 4, Sunday). Through the stories of poor English settlers in North America, and conquistadors and then liberators in South America, he explains how it came about that the United States is now the dominant force in western civilisation. And it all comes down to what he describes as his “killer app” number three: property. In the South, after the land was snatched from the indigenous people, it was owned by the king back in Spain, then by a few greedy noblemen such as this Jeronimo de Aliaga dude. Even liberation from Europe didn’t lead to democracy, and land is still the big issue in much of Latin America today. In North America, settlers such as Abraham Smith and Millicent Howard worked to earn the right to both land and suffrage, freedom through property. And that’s how the American Dream started, though it’s not a untarnished one because freedom was possible only if you were white. Ferguson’s is a no-nonsense approach: here’s how it is, you better believe it. It’s not especially charming, but it certainly isn’t boring – it’s a a rollicking roller-coaster ride through time, so much fun it doesn’t even feel like school. Television Christopher Isherwood Niall Ferguson Sam Wollaston guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Despite our air attacks in Libya this weekend, most Middle East experts view the growing rebellion in Bahrain as being far more important to America. Yet according to the BBC's Katty Kay, who was a guest on the syndicated “Chris Matthews Show,” the Obama administration doesn't want the press reporting what's going on there (video follows with transcript and commentary): KATTY KAY, BBC: Chris, we spend a lot of time on the program talking about Libya, but what’s happening in Bahrain is more violent and of much more strategic interest to the United States. CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Because of oil. KAY: Because of oil, and because of the 5th Fleet is stationed there. What happens in Bahrain is really critical to America, but it’s in Washington’s interest and the White House’s interest that we don’t report this story very much. They would like that one to go away because there’s no real upside for them in supporting the rebellion by the Shiites. MATTHEWS: And not reporting it helps how? How does not reporting it help? KAY: Because they just don’t want too much attention focused on what’s happening there because they don’t want to be having to be pushed into a position of helping the Shiite rebels there. So what's so important about protecting the rebels in Libya, especially as we're really not sure who they are or what they stand for? The Jerusalem Post reporte d last Sunday that an al Qaeda commander is backing the Libyan rebels. The perilously liberal Huffington Post reported Saturday that some of these rebels are radical Islamists with strong anti-American sympathies. But the Obama administration wants the news media to ignore what's going on in Bahrain because they don't want to help Shiite rebels there? Now, in fairness, there has been no media blackout of the Bahrain rebellion up to this point. However, it's fascinating that a British Washington correspondent is aware that the White House wishes there was one, and it will be very interesting to see if they get their wish now that we've begun fighting in Libya. Stay tuned.
Continue reading …