What's new

Libya: Qaddhafi Violates Ceasefire, Foreign Forces Mount Attack

1843 GMT: President Obama is speaking again on Libya at his press conference in Santiago. He said it was "very easy to square our military actions and our stated policies" on Libya. "Our military action is in support of an international mandate from the Security Council that specifically focuses on the humanitarian threat posed by Col Gaddafi to his people", he said. "Not only was he carrying out murders of civilians but he threatened more.... In the face of that, the international community rallied and said, we have to stop any potential atrocities inside of Libya, and provided a broad mandate to accomplish that specific task."

Mr Obama said the US would soon step back from the operation. "After the initial thrust that has disabled Gaddafi's air defences, limiting his ability to threaten the populations, there will be a transition in which we have a range of coalition partners, who will then be participating in establishing a no-fly zone."

"The core point that has to be upheld here, is that the entire international community, almost unanimously, says that when there is a potential humanitarian crisis about to take place, when a leader that has lost legitimacy and decides to turn his military on his own people, we simply can't stand by with empty words, we have to take some sort of action," said Mr Obama.

Mr Obama was at pains to say that the US intervention in Libya was not like previous US military missions, where the country acted unilaterally or with limited international support. He said the way the US "took leadership and managed this process ensures international legitimacy and ensures that our partners in the international coalition are bearing the burden of following through on the mission as well".

"It is US policy that Gaddafi needs to go," said Mr Obama, adding that the US has "a wide range of tools in addition to our military efforts to support that policy".
 
.
6.26pm GMT: The Guardian's political editor Patrick Wintour has filed on the increasing confusion over the legitimacy of targeting Muammar Gaddafi within the context of UN security council resolution 1973.

Number 10 (I think he meant 10 Dowling St.) has appeared to side with the Defence Secretary Liam Fox against the chief of the defence staff Sir David Richards by saying the removal of Colonel Gaddafi through military targeting is lawful under the UN security council resolution - if Gaddafi is threatening civilian lives.

Downing Street stressed that it will not provide a running commentary on targets, but the prime minister's spokesman's remarks suggest the government believes it has legal authority to target Colonel Gaddafi.

Earlier Sir David Richards, attending a meeting of the ad hoc war cabinet in Downing Street, had said Gaddafi "is absolutely not a target".

The PM's spokesman said: "The security council resolution provides for a wide range of action - all necessary measures - but that action must be in the pursuit of the objectives that are set out, and obviously we will act according to that security council resolution and any action we take and any targets will be legitimate targets. One of the objectives of the resolution is the protection of civilians".

He stressed the resolution did not give legal authority to bring about Gaddafi's removal of power by military means. The stated objective is a no-fly zone and protection of civilians.

He added: "Our targets will be chosen to meet those objectives - prevent attacks on civilians and achieve a no fly zone - but we will not be giving a running commentary on those targets."

The dispute over the interpretation of the security council resolution goes beyond an argument inside the British government and has implications for the breadth of Arab and international support. The US defence secretary Robert Gates had said it is unwise to describe Gaddafi as a legitimate target, and many Arabs fear the west may be going beyond establishing a no-fly zone and is instead making regime change an objective of the current coalition military offensive, rather than a broad policy aspiration of the government.
 
.
1843 GMT: President Obama is speaking again on Libya at his press conference in Santiago. He said it was "very easy to square our military actions and our stated policies" on Libya. "Our military action is in support of an international mandate from the Security Council that specifically focuses on the humanitarian threat posed by Col Gaddafi to his people", he said. "Not only was he carrying out murders of civilians but he threatened more.... In the face of that, the international community rallied and said, we have to stop any potential atrocities inside of Libya, and provided a broad mandate to accomplish that specific task."

Mr Obama said the US would soon step back from the operation. "After the initial thrust that has disabled Gaddafi's air defences, limiting his ability to threaten the populations, there will be a transition in which we have a range of coalition partners, who will then be participating in establishing a no-fly zone."

"The core point that has to be upheld here, is that the entire international community, almost unanimously, says that when there is a potential humanitarian crisis about to take place, when a leader that has lost legitimacy and decides to turn his military on his own people, we simply can't stand by with empty words, we have to take some sort of action," said Mr Obama.

Mr Obama was at pains to say that the US intervention in Libya was not like previous US military missions, where the country acted unilaterally or with limited international support. He said the way the US "took leadership and managed this process ensures international legitimacy and ensures that our partners in the international coalition are bearing the burden of following through on the mission as well".

America has its interest in Libya and they are worrying about human rights ...
 
.
1909 GMT: Anti-aircraft gunfire is lighting up the sky over Tripoli.

1906 GMT: CNN correspondent Nic Robertson in Tripoli says sirens can be heard coming from the area of the city where the compound is located. Loud anti-aircraft can be heard, indicating a no-fly zone has "not yet been achieved militarily", he says.

1902 GMT: There are reports of explosions in Tripoli and anti-aircraft tracer fire apparently coming from Col Gaddafi's compound.
 
.
8.05pm GMT: Lisa Holland of Sky News is reporting from Tripoli that rumours are doing the rounds that Muammar Gaddafi's compound has been hit again after parts of it was reduced to rubble last nigh

7.51pm: The Libyan regime is claiming that "many were killed" by air strikes against targets including the airport at Muammar Gaddafi's home town of Sirte, the Reuters news agency is reporting.

It's unclear as of yet whether they are referring to new air strikes tonight, or those from other nights.

1943: Libyan state TV is reporting that several sites in the capital have been attacked by what it calls the "crusader enemy", Reuters reports. It says the broadcast adds that: "These attacks are not going to scare the Libyan people.

1959: More from the Libyan government spokesman who is giving a press briefing to journalists in the capital, Tripoli. He says that coalition forces have also bombarded Sebha, a southern town with close ties to Gaddafi.
 
.
"This resolution calls for far-reaching measures but we never got answers to very basic questions," Indian envoy to UN Hardeep Singh Puri told PTI. "This entire exercise has been based on less than complete information."

"Passing a resolution is an interactive process...if countries have doubts...you try to remove them," Puri said. "I’m afraid that the two countries leading the process (UK and France) did not make the required effort."

people fooled again.
 
.


people fooled again.

The Russians, Chineses , and the Germans are saying the same thing. Matter of fact conservatives in America are all against it. Here is George Will,



When he was asked by ABC’s This Week host Christiane Amanpour if he believed Obama’s bombing of Libya was the “right thing to do,” Will replied: “I do not. We have intervened in a tribal society, in a civil war. And we have taken sides in that civil war on behalf of a people we do not know or understand, for the purpose—not a vow, but inexorably our purpose—of creating a political vacuum by decapitating the government. Into that vacuum, what will flow we do not know and cannot know.”

There is no limiting principle in what we’ve done. If we are to protect people who are under assault… we are not only logically committed to helping them, we are inciting them to rise in expectation. The mission creep began here… before the mission began, because we had a means not suited to the end. The means is a no-fly zone that will not affect the end which is obviously regime change.


The American Conservative » Obama’s Libyan War
 
.
I am a conservation Republican. In this instance we got a consensus via a UN Resolution, endorsed by the Arab League. We, us Americans, have to put aside our political differences and back our President who is constitutionally our Commander in Chief, and support the alliance's efforts to keep a no fly zone in place. It is morally wrong and would have been to our eternal shame not to have helped the people of Libya who were being exterminated by the madman Ghadafi.

There were and continue to be contacts with the rebels and we knew going in that most were not dangerous sorts. The terrorists will always try to infiltrated and try to take advantage of situations but al Qaida per se detests democracy, and these rebels want freedom and democracy.

That is good enough for me sitting at home in the USA trying to track this mess in Libya from a long distance away.

I at least have been in Libya, while in the regular USAF, when we still had Wheelus AFB in Tripoli. About 1/3 of Tripoli's population are Italians some families dating back to Roman times. They are good people as are the tribal Arabs there whose history, too, is ancient and worthwhile.
 
.
What a bunch of hypocrites.

You want to convince us your dedication to democracy?

Well, first get rid of those kings from Saudi, Yemen, Kuwait, and all of those mid-east countries.

How about starting bombing Yemen first???

I am a conservation Republican. In this instance we got a consensus via a UN Resolution, endorsed by the Arab League. We, us Americans, have to put aside our political differences and back our President who is constitutionally our Commander in Chief, and support the alliance's efforts to keep a no fly zone in place. It is morally wrong and would have been to our eternal shame not to have helped the people of Libya who were being exterminated by the madman Ghadafi.

There were and continue to be contacts with the rebels and we knew going in that most were not dangerous sorts. The terrorists will always try to infiltrated and try to take advantage of situations but al Qaida per se detests democracy, and these rebels want freedom and democracy.

That is good enough for me sitting at home in the USA trying to track this mess in Libya from a long distance away.

I at least have been in Libya, while in the regular USAF, when we still had Wheelus AFB in Tripoli. About 1/3 of Tripoli's population are Italians some families dating back to Roman times. They are good people as are the tribal Arabs there whose history, too, is ancient and worthwhile.
 
.
What a bunch of hypocrites.

You want to convince us your dedication to democracy?

Well, first get rid of those kings from Saudi, Yemen, Kuwait, and all of those mid-east countries.

How about starting bombing Yemen first???

But Yemen is totally differently, they haven't shot scores of their own civilians. Oh wait...


On a serious note, I think the contrast between Libya and Yemen will be the litmus test for American principles in this middle eastern episode. Both government have used disproportionate force to put down a popular uprising and now Yemen's government is losing legitimacy like Gaddafi did through the defection of senior general and diplomats abroad.

I'm sure the world is waiting to see how America responds.
 
.
The Wall Street regime enslaves entire countries, but only certain countries. Easily manipulated ones with tribal instincts and vast natural resources are prime targets for US military enslavement. The US is not a nation but rather an empire. Its residents show no more affinity towards each other than the components of Rome. It is no more of a unified entity than the colony of India under the British Raj. While Rome's legions were victorious in battle, it was away from the inside. The US is no different. Within a few decades, this ugly monster of history will decay away and an age of peace will come on earth. As soon as the imposed US government weakens, the Mexicans, Blacks, and Europeans will each fight for their independence against the totalitarian Wall Street regime.
 
.
The fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree

Indeed, Saif, an elegant, soft-spoken graduate of the London School of Economics, has now become a prime suspect in massive crimes against humanity.

Omar Ashour

The enemy of yesterday is the friend of today....t was a real war, but those brothers are free men now." Thus spoke Saif Al Islam Al Qaddafi in March 2010, referring to the leaders of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), an armed organisation that had attempted to assassinate his father, Muammar Al Qaddafi, three times in the mid-1990's.
This may seem surprising. A few days ago, the very same man promised Libyans a "sea of blood" if his father's regime was toppled. Indeed, Saif, an elegant, soft-spoken graduate of the London School of Economics, has now become a prime suspect in massive crimes against humanity.
Creation of a Hydra-headed security apparatus, mass-murder of opponents (both real and imagined), widespread torture, and sustained censorship and repression are some of the common tactics used by Qaddafi, former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, former Tunisian President Zine Al Abidine Ben Ali, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and many others.
But Qaddafi's regime became an international pariah mainly for a series of terrorist plots abroad, not for crimes against humanity committed against Libyans. Oil interests and the regime's "dovish" face in recent years successfully extended its life.
Qaddafi's dovish period coincided with the rise to prominence of his second son, Saif Al Islam, and his sister Ayesha, the latter becoming a goodwill ambassador for the United Nations. Saif cultivated a reputation for being a "reformer": he called for a national-reconciliation process with opposition groups, supposedly liberalised the media, supported charity and development initiatives, and most importantly, became a face that the West could talk to.
The two public fronts for those initiatives were Libya Tomorrow and the Al Qaddafi Foundation for Development. Behind them, however, Libyan Military Intelligence, headed by Abdullah Al Sanosi, was giving conditional support and setting the general direction for their activities.
The "reforms" proposed by Saif Al Islam included releasing some political prisoners, especially those, like the LIFG, who declared their allegiance to Qaddafi's regime. But concrete steps leading to government transparency and accountability, such as inquiries into oil wealth and state expenditures, or serious investigation of crimes against humanity, were all beyond his will and imagination.
Despite the cosmetic nature of the "reforms," other regime factions, most notably those led by Saif's brothers Mutassim, Al Sa'adi, and Khamis, challenged them. Behind the brothers were other security agencies: the Internal Security Forces, the Revolutionary Committees, and, to a lesser extent, the Jamahiriya Security Apparatus (Foreign Intelligence).
When I visited Tripoli in March 2010 for a "national reconciliation" conference, the conflicting statements given by Saif and security officials surprised me. The head of Internal Security Forces, Colonel Al Tuhami Khaled, another principal suspect in the crimes currently being committed against Libyans, refused to call the process "reconciliation." For him, it was "repentance from heresy."
Given the recent wave of uprisings, it is more evident than ever that any "reform" initiatives undertaken in the Arab world previously were aimed only at sustaining dictatorships and escaping punishment for criminal abuse of power. The reform "debate" within these regimes boiled down to a struggle between different branches of the security-military apparatus over the best way to preserve the status quo.
When asked by a journalist what I would like to say to Saif if I were ever to meet him again, I replied: "I hope to see you in the International Criminal Court, beside Mubarak and Ben Ali." Millions of Arabs of my generation and younger would probably give the same answer if asked what should become of the men who controlled their present and sought to destroy their future.


Omar Ashour is a lecturer in Middle East politics and Director of the Middle East Graduate Studies Programme at the Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies, University of Exeter.
 
.
Gadhafi has dig his own hole by defying his own declare cease fire and showing arrogance towards western fir power, its matter of couple of day or week when his regime will collapse and follow the history of Saddam mubark ben ali .
 
.
Libya Rebels Advance

Libya's rebels scrambled to try to exploit international strikes on Moammar Gaddafi's forces and go on the offensive, as some of the opposition's ragtag citizen-fighters charged ahead to fight troops besieging a rebel city Monday. But the rebellion's more organized military units were still not ready, and the opposition disarray underscored U.S. warnings that a long stalemate could emerge.

The air campaign by U.S. and European militaries has unquestionably rearranged the map in Libya and rescued rebels from the immediate threat they faced only days ago of being crushed under a powerful advance by Gaddafi's forces. The first round of airstrikes smashed a column of regime tanks that had been moving on the rebel capital of Benghazi in the east.

Monday night, Libyan state TV said a new round of strikes had begun in the capital, Tripoli, marking the third night of bombardment. But while the airstrikes can stop Gaddafi's troops from attacking rebel cities – in line with the U.N. mandate to protect civilians – the United States, at least, appeared deeply reluctant to go beyond that toward actively helping the rebel cause to oust the Libyan leader.

President Barack Obama said Monday that "it is U.S. policy that Gaddafi has to go." But, he said, the international air campaign has a more limited goal, to protect civilians.

"Our military action is in support of an international mandate from the Security Council that specifically focuses on the humanitarian threat posed by Col. Gaddafi to his people. Not only was he carrying out murders of civilians but he threatened more," the president said on a visit to Chile.

In Washington, the American general running the assault said there is no attempt to provide air cover for rebel operations. Gen. Carter Ham said Gaddafi might cling to power once the bombardment finishes, setting up a stalemate between his side and the rebels, with allied nations enforcing a no-fly zone to ensure he cannot attack civilians.

Henri Guaino, a top adviser to the French president, said the allied effort would last "a while yet."

Among the rebels, as well, there was a realization that fighting could be drawn out. Mohammed Abdul-Mullah, a 38-year-old civil engineer from Benghazi who was fighting with the rebel force, said government troops stopped all resistance after the international campaign began.

"The balance has changed a lot," he said. "But pro-Gaddafi forces are still strong. They are a professional military and they have good equipment. Ninety percent of us rebels are civilians, while Gaddafi's people are professional fighters."

Disorganization among the rebels could also hamper their attempts to exploit the turn of events. Since the uprising began, the opposition has been made up of disparate groups even as it took control of the entire east of the country.

Regular citizens – residents of the "liberated" areas – took up arms and formed a ragtag, highly enthusiastic but highly undisciplined force that in the past weeks has charged ahead to fight Gaddafi forces, only to be beaten back by superior firepower. Regular army units that joined the rebellion have proven stronger, more organized fighters, but only a few units have joined the battles while many have stayed behind as officers struggle to get together often antiquated, limited equipment and form a coordinated force.

Meanwhile, a "political leadership" has formed, made up of former members of Gaddafi's regime who defected along with prominent local figures in the east, such as lawyers and doctors. The impromptu nature of their leadership has left some in the West – particularly in the United States – unclear on who the rebels are that the international campaign is protecting.

The disarray among the opposition was on display on Monday.

With Benghazi relieved, several hundred of the "citizen fighters" barreled to the west, vowing to break a siege on the city of Ajdabiya by Gaddafi forces, which have been pounding a rebel force holed up inside the city since before the allied air campaign began. The fighters pushed without resistance down the highway from Benghazi – littered with the burned out husks of Gaddafi's tanks and armored personnel carriers hit in the airstrikes – until they reached the outskirts of Ajdabiya.

Along the way, they swept into the nearby oil port of Zwitina, just northeast of Ajdabiya, which was also the scene of heavy fighting last week – though now had been abandoned by regime forces. There, a power station hit by shelling on Thursday was still burning, its blackened fuel tank crumpled, with flames and black smoke pouring out.

Some of the fighters, armed with assault rifles, grenade launchers and truck-mounted anti-aircraft guns, charged to the city outskirts and battled with Gaddafi forces in the morning. A number of rebels were killed before they were forced to pull back somewhat, said the spokesman for the rebels' organized military forces, Khalid al-Sayah.

Al-Sayah said the fighters' advance was spontaneous "as always." But the regular army units that have joined the rebellion are not yet ready to go on the offensive. "We don't want to advance without a plan," he told AP in Benghazi. "If it were up to the army, the advance today would not have happened."

He said the regular units intend to advance but not yet, saying it was not yet ready. "It's a new army, we're starting it from scratch."

By Monday afternoon, around 150 citizen-fighters were massed in a field of dunes several miles (kilometers) outside Ajdabiya. Some stood on the wind-swept dunes with binoculars to survey the positions of pro-Gaddafi forces sealing off the entrances of the city. Ajdabiya itself was visible, black smoke rising, apparently from fires burning from fighting in recent days.

"There are five Gaddafi tanks and eight rocket launchers behind those trees and lots of 4x4s," one rebel fighter, Fathi Obeidi, standing on a dune and pointing at a line of trees between his position and the city, told an Associated Press reporter at the scene.

Gaddafi forces have ringed the city's entrance and were battling with opposition fighters inside, rebels said. The plan is for the rebel forces from Benghazi "to pinch" the regime troops while "those inside will push out," Obeidi said. He said a special commando unit that defected to the opposition early on in the uprising was inside the city leading the defense.

Regime troops are also besieging a second city – Misrata, the last significant rebel-held territory in western Libya. According to reports from Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya, new fighting erupted Monday at Misrata, Libya's third largest city, which the forces have shelled repeatedly over recent days while cutting off most food and water supplies to residents.

So far, allied bombardment has concentrated on knocking out Libyan air defenses, but a significant test of international intentions will be whether eventually the strikes by ship-fired cruise missiles and warplanes will try to break the sieges of Ajdabiya and Misrata by targeting the Gaddafi troops surrounding them.

Al-Sayah said there had been allied strikes against Gaddafi positions outside Ajdabiya early Monday, but there was no independent confirmation, and the troops were still in place Monday afternoon.

Ali Zeidan, an envoy to Europe from the opposition-created governing council, told The Associated Press that rebels want to drive Gaddafi from power and see him tried – not have him killed. He said that while airstrikes have helped, the opposition needs more weapons to win the fight.

"We are able to deal with Gaddafi's forces by ourselves" as long as it's a fair fight, he said in Paris. "You see, Gaddafi himself, we are able to target him, and we would like to have him alive to face the international or the Libyan court for his crime .... We don't like to kill anybody ... even Gaddafi himself."

At the Pentagon, Ham said Monday afternoon that during the previous 24 hours, U.S. and British forces launched 12 Tomahawk land attack missiles, targeting regime command-and-control facilities and a missile facility and attacking one air defense site that already had been attacked.

"Through a variety of reports, we know that regime ground forces that were in the vicinity of Benghazi now possess little will or capability to resume offensive operations," he said.

A spokesman for the French military, whose warplanes have been conducting strikes in the Benghazi region, said there is a "very clear scale-down in the intensity of combat and, therefore, threats to the population" because of the bombardment.

"There still are pro-Gaddafi elements in the zone where we're working. Nevertheless, these elements haven't necessarily been dealt with because they are mixed in, for example with the civilian population," Thierry Burkhard said.

Libya Rebels Advance, Buoyed By Allied Airstrikes
 
.
Obama’s dilemma in Arabia

Accurate analysis of the nature of Arab uprisings is essential to avoid Iraq-like fiascos brought on by knee-jerk military action.

Christopher Hill

Not since 1989 has the world seen such an all-consuming, all-engulfing wildfire of freedom and democracy, whose burning passions are sweeping across a region vast and old and desperately in need of reform. From the Maghreb to the Levant to the Arabian Peninsula, Arab history is on the move. A new generation of leadership seems poised to take over.
Moments like these are especially challenging for foreign policymakers, who must keep one eye on the world as it is and the other on the world as it might be in the future. In trying to do just that, US President Barack Obama has been harangued about the need to "get on the right side of history," or, to quote Bob Dylan, "to get out of the new [road] if you can't lend your hand."
These are, indeed, delicate and changing times for the US, especially at a time when Americans expect their president to be the "emoter" in chief. How Obama manages calls from both the left and the right for more action could well shape the environment in which the process - owned and managed by Arabs - eventually unfolds.
As it picks its way through crisis after crisis in the Arab world, the Obama administration would do well to follow a few guidelines that do not change with every news cycle.
First, staying on the right side of history is one thing, but suggesting that the US is inspiring, if not directing, the Arab revolts is quite another.
Avoiding this perception is sometimes difficult: in much of the region, US media are perceived as an arm of a supposedly omnipotent America. So, when the reporting of US correspondents borders on cheerleading (a relatively common occurrence), the perception that America is masterminding events is given fresh impetus.
It is thus wise for Obama not to be out directing traffic in the crise du jour. There are times when it is best for a US president to lay low, even if it makes him seem absent and disengaged. This is one of those times. Second, Americans often pride themselves on taking a transactional approach to the world. But what is happening in the Arab world is not a series of transactions; it is a tectonic cultural shift in terms of generational attitudes, gender relations and urban-rural tensions.
Democracy versus dictatorship is, of course, one fault line, but so is the 1,300-year-old Shiite-Sunni divide. Policies designed for one fault line are not necessarily appropriate for the latter.
Accurate analysis of what is taking place on the ground is essential, but this can prove difficult in an echo chamber of globalised cultural icons. While many Americans would like to think that the battle lines have been drawn between Tweeters and non-Tweeters, between those on Facebook and those without profiles, it is more likely that some other identities account for what is happening.
Of course, nobody likes to refer to "tribalism" or "clan" conflict, but these elements of identity often play a key role in determining people's willingness to take to the streets. In fact, the aura of political incorrectness that surrounds such terms reflects the absence of any similar organising principle in contemporary globalised societies. But that is no reason to rule out such categories of analysis where they do apply.
Third, there is at least one motivation behind the Arab revolts that permeates western politics as well: the urge to forget the facts, the risks, and the future, and just throw the autocrats out. We see this sentiment reflected in the slogan that has become ubiquitous in the region: 'The people want to bring down the regime'. Who is to say that this motivation should be held in any lower regard than that of those manning the ramparts of democracy? There is much to respect in the 'throw them out' approach. Unfortunately, it does not always lead to more democracy.
Finally, the Obama administration should bear in mind that in some countries, the old order will be replaced quickly. In time, however, the changes might amount to less than was first hoped, and could actually bring about a situation that arguably is worse than the status quo ante (the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, and the Iranian Revolution come to mind).
In other countries, of course, the outcome might be much more promising (the American Revolution, Eastern Europe in 1989).
Some historical processes, however quickly launched, will eventually falter. An autocrat who has shown no concern for his people might actually prove quite talented at clinging to power. In these circumstances, there will be inevitable calls for the West - namely the US - to overthrow the tyrant militarily.
When such prescriptions present themselves, policymakers should take a deep breath and ask how the tyrant got there in the first place.
When US-led forces overthrew Saddam Hussain in 2003, far too little effort was made to understand how a peasant tyrant like Saddam was able to seize power and hold it for so long. How did he manipulate Sunni-Shiite relations, or manage the complexities of Iraq's tribal system, so well?
Surely, that lesson should be applied as the US responds to the emergence of a new - but not necessarily newly democratic - Arab world.


Christopher R. Hill, a former US assistant secretary of state for East Asia, was US ambassador to Iraq, South Korea, Macedonia, and Poland, and US special envoy for Kosovo.
 
.

Latest posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom