• Turn on the auto-refresh button below for the latest updates • Email barney.ronay@guardian.co.uk with any musings • Keep up to date with all tonight’s goals with our live scoreboard • And why not follow Barney on Twitter , if that’s your thing 7.24pm: Hello and welcome to live coverage of the most significant England friendly this week. It’s England B v Ghana at Wembley Stadium: The Black Stars versus the slack stars in front of sell-out crowd, many of whom presumably bought their tickets quite a while ago. The big issue here is of course the selection of a weakened team by Fabio Capello. And here is that weakened team in full: England Joe Hart; Glen Johnson, Leighton Baines, Gary Cahill, Phil Jagielka, James Milner, Gareth Barry, Jack Wilshere; Andy Carroll, Ashley Young, Stewart Downing England Ghana Friendlies Barney Ronay guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Clinton tells London conference that UN security council resolution 1973 overrode absolute prohibition of arms to Libya Hillary Clinton has paved the way for the United States to arm the Libyan rebels by declaring that the recent UN security council resolution relaxed an arms embargo on the country. As Libya’s opposition leaders called for the international community to arm them, the secretary of state indicated that the US was considering whether to meet their demands when she talked of a “work in progress”. The US indicated on Monday night that it had not ruled out arming the rebels, though it was assumed this would take some time because of a UN arms embargo which applies to all sides in Libya. But Clinton made clear that UN security council resolution 1973, which allowed military strikes against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime, relaxed the embargo. Speaking after the conference on Libya in London, Clinton said: “It is our interpretation that [resolution] 1973 amended or overrode the absolute prohibition of arms to anyone in Libya so that there could be legitimate transfer of arms if a country were to choose to do that. We have not made that decision at this time.” Clinton’s remarks came after the Libyan Transitional National Council used the London conference to issue a plea to be armed. Mahmoud Shammam, the council’s head of media, told a press conference at the foreign office: “We asked everybody to help us in many ways. One of them is giving our youth some real weapons. “If you look to the reports that you have from the streets of Libya or from the cities of Libya you will see that our people have very light arms. You can see that just regular cars are fighting with machine guns. We don’t have arms at all, otherwise we finish Gaddafi in a few days. But we don’t have arms. We ask for the political support more than we are asking for the arms. But if we get both that would be great.” Signs of a growing international support for arming the rebels was highlighted by Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabor al Thani, the prime minister of Qatar, who was the most senior Arab politician to attend the summit. Al Thani, whose country is providing military aircraft to help patrol the no-fly zone over Libya, said: “We did not discuss [arming the rebels] – definitely [at the conference]. But our opinion is that we have to evaluate the air strikes after a while to see if it is effective to protect the people of Libya or not. “At that time we – the international community – have to see what sort of measures [should be taken]. We are not talking about invading Libya. But we have to evaluate the situation because we cannot allow the people to suffer for so long. We have to find a way to stop this bloodshed.” William Hague, the foreign secretary who chaired the conference, made clear that Britain believes that it would be illegal to arm any side in Libya. He said: “We did not discuss at the conference today arming the opposition … but this subject has been raised by the national council. But it is not part of any agreement today. The UK takes into account the UN security council resolutions on this. Those resolutions in our view apply to the whole of Libya, although it is consistent with UN security council resolution 1973 to give people aid in order to defend themselves in particular circumstances.” Clinton cautioned that no decision has been made yet on arming the rebels as she said the first priority was to provide financial support for the Transitional National Council. “We have not made any decision about arming the rebels or providing any arms transfers. So there has not been any need to discuss that at this point. We did discuss non-lethal assistance. We discussed ways of trying to enable the Transitional National Council to meet a lot of their financial needs and how we can do that through the international community given the challenges that sanctions pose but recognising that they are going to need funds to keep going.” Clinton had earlier warned that coalition military action in Libya will continue until Gaddafi complies with the terms of United Nations security council resolution 1973. “We have prevented a potential massacre,” the secretary of state told the conference. “This coalition military action will continue until Gaddafi fully complies with the terms of 1973, ceases his attacks on civilians, pulls his troops back from places they have forcibly entered and allows key services and humanitarian assistance to reach all civilians.” Clinton spoke shortly David Cameron opened the conference with a warning that Gaddafi is still in “flagrant breach” of the UN resolution and is allowing civilians to bleed to death in the streets of Misrata. Cameron said Gaddafi’s behaviour in Misrata showed the need for military action which had averted a massacre and saved Benghazi. The prime minister underlined his message by giving a vivid account of the battle in Misrata as he addressed more than 40 foreign ministers and representatives of international organisations gathered at Lancaster House. He said: “Gaddafi is using snipers to shoot [the people of Misrata] down and let them bleed to death in the street. He has cut off food, water and electricity to starve them into submission. He continues to be in flagrant breach of the UN security council resolution. That is why there has been such widespread support amongst the Libyan people – and in the wider Arab world – for the military action we are taking. It has saved lives, and it is saving lives.” Cameron, who convened the conference as Nato prepared to assume command of the military campaign from the US, said the conference was designed to help create a peaceful Libya as he set out three goals for the meeting: • Reaffirm the international community’s commitment to UN security council resolution 1973 which allowed for “all necessary measures” to protect civilians in Libya. This has allowed for the imposition of a no-fly zone, the enforcement of an arms embargo and air strikes to protect civilians. • Ensure that humanitarian aid is delivered to the Libyan people. • Help the Libyan people plan for their future once the conflict is over. The prime minister announced that a contact group would be established to help monitor the transition. This will consist of the EU, the UN, the Arab League, the African Union, and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. Libya’s Transitional National Council was consulted, though this was on an informal basis because countries such as Britain are unable to recognise it as the formal representative of Libya. Cameron, who met Mahmoud Jabril, the council’s special envoy on Tuesday, hailed a “vision for a democratic Libya” set out by the council. The prime minister reached out to the Arab world by making clear that rebuilding the symbols of Islam, destroyed in the recent fighting, would be at the heart of the reconstruction of Libya. “When the fighting is over, we will need to put right the damage that Gaddafi has inflicted. Repairing the hospitals ruined by shells, rebuilding the homes demolished by Gaddafi’s tank rounds and restoring the mosques and minarets smashed by his barbarity.” Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, announced that his special envoy, Abdelilah Mohamed al-Khatib, would travel to Libya after the conference to talk to both sides. The secretary general indicated that the two sides were guilty of human rights abuses. “We continue to receive deeply disturbing reports about the lack of protection of civilians including various abuses of human rights by the parties to the conflict,” he said. Libya Middle East Muammar Gaddafi Hillary Clinton United States Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Ken Burns’ next project will wade into the quagmire known as America’s “war of lost illusions:” Vietnam. PBS announced the project, already in production, yesterday, reports Time , and expects to air it in 2016. Burns mentioned a Vietnam project in 2007 when promoting The War, but said he wanted to…
Continue reading …
Obama’s arguments for US action in Libya draws scorn from Sarah Palin and comparisons with Bush’s foreign policy Did the world witness the birth of an “Obama doctrine” in the president’s speech on Libya? Or is it just a thinly disguised version of George Bush’s doctrine? “It is stunning how similar in tone this speech is to George W Bush’s Iraq speeches,” was the response of former Republican congressman and TV anchor Joe Scarborough. Later, Scarborough accused Obama’s supporters on the left of hypocrisy: How can the left call for the ouster of Muammar Qadhafi for the sin of killing hundreds of Libyans when it opposed the war waged against Saddam Hussein? Erick Erickson, the influential Republican blogger, derided Obama’s justifications for military action. “Here comes the ‘I am George Bush, but I don’t want you to think I am George Bush’ line,” Erickson tweeted mid-speech . But otherwise Erickson was unimpressed : Obama’s doctrine or lack thereof is the foreign policy equivalent of being a little bit pregnant. Wants Gaddafi gone, but no regime change. Steven Metz, a professor at the US Army War College, heard echoes of Bush’s defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld in Obama’s arguments for international participation. “Rumsfeld believed that if the United States minimised its role in the stabilisation and reconstruction of Iraq, other nations would step up,” Metz wrote in the New Republic, explaining: Initially Bush was only addressing the September 11 attacks. The big ideas and the doctrines came later. Only time will tell whether an Obama Doctrine will emerge following this pattern. Defining the Obama doctrine proved more difficult. Aaron David Miller, a Middle East peace negotiator in the Clinton administration, told the New York Times : The Obama doctrine is the ‘hedge your bets and make sure you have a way out’ doctrine. He learned from Afghanistan and Iraq. On the more immediate question of whether the speech would win support for Obama’s action, the president found himself with some unusual supporters. One was the neoconservative cheerleader William Kristol, editor of the right-wing Weekly Standard , one of a small group of commentators Obama spoke to before his speech: The president was unapologetic, freedom-agenda-embracing, and didn’t shrink from defending the use of force or from appealing to American values and interests. Furthermore, the president seems to understand we have to win in Libya. I think we will. On the fringes of the Republican party Obama’s speech got qualified support from his 2008 opponent, Senator John McCain. But McCain is regarded with deep suspicion by many Republicans, and the party’s congressional leaders instead aimed criticism at Obama’s actions, saying he hadn’t explained the extent and costs of the US’s role and failed to gain approval from Congress. Sarah Palin represented a more mainstream Republican opposition, accusing Obama of a “dodgy” strategy. It was, Palin told Fox News , “full of chaos and questions”: [Obama] did not make the case for this intervention. US interests have got to be met if we are going to intervene. And US interests can’t just mean validating some kind of post-American theory of intervention wherein we wait for the Arab League and the United Nations to tell us ‘thumbs up America, you can go now, you can act’, and then we get in the back of the bus and we wait for Nato, we wait for the French to lead us. That’s not inspirational. At the National Review, unofficial house organ of the Republican right, the discomfort of America’s neocons was on display. While they liked military intervention against Gaddafi, they couldn’t rush to support a political opponent. “On paper, I agree with a lot of what Obama is saying,” said National Review commentator Jim Geraghty . “But he’s stringing together a lot of pretty-sounding phrases without really getting at the questions most skeptical Americans have: why intervene here and not in other places?” Marc Lynch, director of George Washington University’s Institute for Middle East Studies, had an answer : “The fact that Cote d’Ivoire is awful is a terrible reason to oppose intervening to save Libyans from slaughter in Benghazi.” Update : The New York Times’s Michael Shear has a fascinating side-by-side comparison of the language used by Obama and Bush. Barack Obama Libya George Bush Sarah Palin US foreign policy Obama administration Republicans United States Richard Adams guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …The GOP often argues that “we’re making it harder and harder for good, honest corporate citizens to create jobs here” thanks to a stiff corporate tax rate, Jon Stewart noted last night . “Can you blame a company like GE for not wanting to do business in America when it has…
Continue reading …
The aesthetic movement rejected John Ruskin’s high-minded approach to art – but there was real radicalism behind his moralising What are you rebelling against? If you had asked this of the founders of the aesthetic movement, whose art is surveyed from this week at the V&A and whose ideas I describe here , they might have said “what Victorian stuffiness have you got?” Or perhaps they would have answered just one word: “Ruskin.” When Walter Pater wrote his aesthetic manifesto, The Renaissance – which was published in 1873, though its essays had been on the lecture circuit for years – he was, in fact, launching a not-so-veiled critique of the art critic and social campaigner John Ruskin . When Pater claims art exists to give pleasure, he is defying the ethical patriarch Ruskin, for whom art exists to redeem the world. Even by simply championing the Renaissance , Pater was begging to differ with Ruskin. In his book The Stones of Venice , Ruskin – equally at home with art and architecture – celebrates the buildings of medieval Venice. In this 19th-century literary and intellectual masterpiece, Ruskin goes into raptures over the facade of the Doge’s Palace. He argues that gothic design is superb because it rejoices in nature, and because it is the “honest” work of true craftsmen who worked anonymously and cared more for the glory of God than the glory of artistic fame. For Ruskin, gothic Venice stood for an organic, communal way of life, and the beauty of its buildings reflects a wholesome social order. All his social reform projects, which included getting Oxford students to build a road as an exercise in honest toil, can be understood through The Stones of Venice. The Renaissance, Ruskin claims, was a decay, a decline, from the true golden age of Venice. In place of the natural complexity of all things gothic, it imposed a chilly classical order. It led to what he saw as the heartless architecture of modern classical buildings such as the Bank of England . Where medieval art was communal, Renaissance art was selfish – the plaything of plutocrats. Pater’s vision of the Renaissance is a conscious repudiation of Ruskin’s. He embraces the very amorality that made Ruskin shudder and argues the aesthetic mission is not to change society but yourself. This debate was not confined to Britain. The Swiss art historian Jacob Burckhardt also rejects Ruskin in his classic book The Civilisation of the Renaissance in Italy, asking outright what was so special about the primitive world of the Christian middle ages. In art, however, the currents are not so clear. Although the aesthetic movement rejected Ruskin’s moralism, artists such as William Morris , the Arthurian Marxist, shared his belief that art can change the social world. For Ruskin, too, was rejecting ugliness, above all attacking the ugliness of industrial capitalism. Where Oscar Wilde’s Dorian Gray was a snob, Ruskin wanted to improve working-class lives. Modern art owes a lot to Pater, but the welfare state and the socialist tradition owe quite a bit to Ruskin. In the end, what is so moving about all these passionate Victorians is the scale of their thinking, the radicalism of their ambitions, the intensity of their engagement with art and society. As the achievements of the Labour movement are thrown away by an amnesiac age, we have a lot to learn from their ideals. Art Jonathan Jones guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Gunmen in Iraqi military uniforms execute hostages and councillors before blowing themselves up in Tikrit attack At least 45 people have been killed by gunmen wearing military uniforms and suicide bomb belts who stormed a local government headquarters in Saddam Hussein’s hometown of Tikrit. A government spokesman said that among those who died were 15 hostages who were executed before their captors blew themselves up. The attackers set off car bombs, explosive belts and hand grenades as they stormed into the building and took hostages, according to local officials. Among the dead were three provincial council members and an Iraqi journalist. A further 65 people were wounded during the siege, which was eventually brought to an end by security forces after several hours. Seven gunmen are also believed to have been killed. Salahuddin province media adviser Muhammad al-Asi said the attackers shot their hostages in the head as security forces closed in. Three local council members were among them. Al-Asi said he saw the bodies as they were taken from the scene at the provincial council headquarters. Salahuddin governor, Ahmed Abdullah, described a fierce shootout between at least eight gunmen, who took over the council headquarters’ second floor, and Iraqi security forces who surrounded the building. He said the attackers were hurling grenades at Iraqi forces. Among the dead was freelance journalist Sabah al-Bazi, 30, who worked for al-Arabiya satellite TV channel as well as Reuters and CNN. A senior intelligence official in Baghdad blamed al-Qaida in Iraq for the attack. “The goal of the attackers was apparently to take hostages,” Salahuddin government spokesman Ali al-Saleh said. At least some officials and government employees escaped, he said. Authorities said the attackers blew up a car outside the council headquarters to create a diversion before launching their raid. Wearing military uniforms – including one with a high rank – the gunmen identified themselves as Iraqi soldiers at a security checkpoint outside the government compound but opened fire on guards when they were told they needed to be searched. The provincial council meets at the headquarters every Tuesday, but a spokesman for the governor, Ali Abdul Rihman, said local politicians called off their discussions early because there was little on their agenda. As a result, he said, most had already left the headquarters when the assault began. “The gunmen were armed with grenades, and began their raid by firing at random at a reception room,” Rihman said. “Then they opened fire inside.” Police imposed a curfew to prevent all road and pedestrian traffic in Tikrit as security forces moved into the building. The senior intelligence official said forces began an operation to free any hostages about two hours after the start of the siege. Rihman likened the attack to a hostage raid last year on a Catholic church in Baghdad that left 68 dead . An al-Qaida-linked group claimed responsibility for that massacre on 31 October, which drove thousands of Iraq’s already dwindling Christian population from their homeland in fear. Tikrit, 50 miles north of Baghdad, is mostly populated by Sunni Muslims and was a hotbed for insurgents linked to al-Qaida and anti-American extremists at the height of the Iraq war. Iraq Global terrorism al-Qaida Middle East guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Chris Brown will appear as planned on Dancing with the Stars tonight, but host Tom Bergeron says producers shouldn’t expect him to interview the singer unless they want to see someone bust a window. Bergeron says he can’t promise to avoid mentioning Brown’s well-publicized temper tantrum following his Good Morning…
Continue reading …Inquest jury tours scene of newspaper vendor’s death after he was struck by police during G20 protests in London in 2009
Continue reading …