Rebels kill 10 peacekeepers in Darfur,- Rebel forces stormed a small African Union base in northern Darfur and killed at least 10 peacekeepers, leaving behind charred armored vehicles and bombed out barracks in an unprecedented attack on the beleaguered mission that threatened upcoming peace talks.

More than 30 peacekeepers were still missing by late Sunday, indicating the death toll from the attack could rise significantly.

About 1,000 rebels from the Sudan Liberation Army attacked the base outside the town of Haskanita Saturday after sunset when Muslims break their daytime fast for the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, AU officers told The Associated Press Sunday at the scene of the attack. The rebels eventually stormed the base early Sunday, they said.

"We battled for hours, but when we ran out of ammunition, we took refuge in this ditch," said a Nigerian peacekeeper who would only give his first name, Aboubakar, because he was not authorized to speak to the media. He showed a corner of the camp riddled with bullet marks and mortar holes where the AU troops mounted their resistance.

Some of the surviving peacekeepers appeared shellshocked and said it was difficult to describe the intensity of the onslaught.

The rebels used armored vehicles and rocket-propelled grenades, an indication that they are more heavily armed than previously believed, peacekeepers said.

The AU troops said they initially repelled the assailants. But the rebels eventually overran the camp at around 4 a.m., peacekeepers said as they recovered from the fighting.

The Sudanese army routed the rebels early Sunday and the remaining AU peacekeepers were evacuated under the protection of the army. By afternoon, some government troops could be seen plundering goods from the burned-out camp as an AU armored vehicle smoldered nearby.

Rebels looted several AU armored vehicles and jeeps and took a large amount of ammunition from the base before the Sudanese army drove them out, AU soldiers said.

"This is the heaviest loss of life and the biggest attack on the African Union mission," said AU spokesman Noureddine Mezni. "Our troops fought a defensive battle to protect the camp, but 30 vehicles eventually stormed it. ... The camp is completely destroyed."

At least 200,000 people have been killed in more than four years of conflict in Darfur, a region of western Sudan. The government is accused of unleashing Arab militias known as the janjaweed to fight ethnic African rebels. The janjaweed are accused of the worst atrocities of the conflict including rape and mass killings of innocent civilians.

Darfur rebels also have grown increasingly hostile to the AU peacekeepers, saying the force is not neutral and favors the government side. Several ambushes of AU forces in the past year have been blamed on the rebels.

But Saturday's raid was the first time since the AU mission was deployed in June 2004 that one of its bases has been overrun, though soldiers have been regularly attacked. There are about 6,000 AU peacekeepers in the region currently.

The announcement that new peace talks to solve the conflict will open on Oct. 27 in Libya has sparked a flurry of fighting between rebels and Sudanese government forces as each try to improve their position ahead of the conference.

The attack came as rebels appeared to flee the area around Haskanita because of a large government offensive there over the past two weeks, AU soldiers said.

AU officers said they had observed several Sudanese helicopter gunships and MiG-19 fighter jets taking off for the Haskanita area early Sunday from their base in southern Darfur. U.N. resolutions forbid all military flights over Darfur.

By midday Sunday, plumes of smokes from several burning villages in the same area could be seen rising into the air. Forces from the Arab-dominated government have been accused of indiscriminately targeting ethnic African Darfur villagers on suspicions they support the rebels.

About 150 peacekeepers, most from Nigeria, had been stationed at the Haskanita base, but they had been grounded since June because of the insecurity in the area.

"This is a terrible incident. We're still trying to understand what happened," said Gen. Martin Agwai, the AU force commander, as he inspected the destroyed base.

As the last AU peacekeepers evacuated the camp late Sunday, Sudanese government troops and militias could be seen patrolling the area. Other government troops were sifting through the camp's debris amid the burning tents and a smoldering AU armored vehicle. Some soldiers carried away mattresses, fans and other gear.

"It may not be the right political thing to say, but the government forces saved us," said an AU officer at Haskanita, who also asked not to be named because of military regulations.

Speaking in Ethiopia, the AU's top peace and security official, Said Djinnit, said 10 peacekeepers were killed in the attack. AU officers said the dead included a police officer from Senegal, two military observers from Botswana and Mali and seven soldiers from Nigeria. At least seven peacekeepers were wounded.

"Some fled on foot and by car and have called us," the AU officer said. "But we're very worried for some of them."

Senegal's foreign ministry confirmed the death of one of its peacekeepers and reiterated a warning that it might pull out its troops if the situation appears too insecure.

The U.N., AU, France and Britain all strongly condemned the attack Sunday.

The Sudanese army also deplored the attack, saying it offered protection to the evacuating peacekeepers. Despite a few sporadic gunshots, the army appeared in control of the area Sunday.

The Darfur situation had been expected to improve after U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon visited Sudan early in September and announced new negotiations with Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir to settle the conflict.

Al-Bashir announced a cease-fire earlier this month, but violence increased in the ensuing weeks.

The underfunded AU force has been unable to stem the fighting in Darfur and will soon be merged into a much more powerful AU-U.N. joint force.

Rebel commanders told AP a few days earlier that they had been involved in heavy battles against government-allied forces in the Haskanita area for the past two weeks.

"The government has massed five or six janjaweed units who are converging on us," said Abdelaziz Ushar, a commander in the rebel Justice and Equality Movement, which fights alongside the SLA.

JEM rebels said they had evacuated Haskanita a couple of days ago, and AU peacekeepers in the camp said they suspected a splinter faction known as SLA-Unity had conducted the raid.

JEM strongly condemned the attack.

"JEM is not certain about the exact culprits in this senseless attack," the group said. There was no comment from SLA-Unity.

___

Associated Press Writers Anita Powell in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and Sadibou Marone in Dakar, Senegal contributed to this report.

Iran president in NY campus clash,Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has clashed with the head of New York's Columbia University while making his controversial appearance at the campus. Columbia President Lee Bollinger described Mr Ahmadinejad as a "cruel dictator" who denied the Holocaust.

In response, Mr Ahmadinejad called the remarks "an insult", adding that more research was needed on the Holocaust.

He again defended Tehran's nuclear ambitions and said it had every right to pursue a peaceful programme.

Washington accuses Iran of seeking to build a nuclear bomb and arming insurgents in Iraq - Tehran rejects the charges.

Many Americans said the Iranian leader should not have been invited to speak at Columbia University.


In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
His appearance sparked protests in New York, with demonstrators saying it provided a platform for hate.
Mr Ahmadinejad has been denied a visit to the site of the 11 September attacks in New York in 2001, with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice saying that "it would have been a travesty".

"This is somebody who is the president of a country that is probably the greatest sponsor - state sponsor - of terrorism," Ms Rice told CNBC television.

'Brazen'

Mr Ahmadinejad was invited to Columbia University to address its students at the university's World Leaders Forum.

He received a hostile welcome from Mr Bollinger, who described the Iranian leader as "a petty and cruel dictator".

"You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated," Mr Bollinger told Mr Ahmadinejad, referring to his denial of the Holocaust.

In response, Mr Ahmadinejad said that Mr Bollinger's remarks were "an insult to information and the knowledge of the audience".

Addressing the Holocaust issue, Mr Ahmadinejad said he simply wanted more research to be done.

He also said the issue was abused by Israel to justify what he said was its mistreatment of the Palestinians.

"Why is it that the Palestinian people are paying the price for an event they had nothing to do with?" Mr Ahmadinejad asked.

Asked about executions of homosexuals in Iran, Mr Ahmadinejad replied: "In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country."

Reacting to laughter and jeers from the audience he added: "In Iran we don't have this phenomenon, I don't know who you told this."

'Evil has landed'

The New York Daily News's front page headline on Monday read "The Evil Has Landed", while the New York Post described Mr Ahmadinejad as "Madman Iran Prez".

Dozens of protesters gathered outside the university on Sunday with placards saying: "Don't give a platform to hate," and calling the Iranian leader a "Hitler wannabe".

Mr Ahmadinejad has called in the past for an end to the Israeli state and described the Holocaust as a "myth".

Mr Bollinger defended the university's invitation, saying it was a question of free speech and academic freedom.

Tickets to the event were snatched up within an hour of becoming available.

The Iranian leader is in New York to attend the UN General Assembly, where he is due to speak on Tuesday.

NYC set to shield Iran prez, Columbia talk still on, Columbia University plans to go forward with a speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the city is mobilizing security to protect him.,Ahmadinejad, scheduled to arrive Sunday to address the United Nation, will speak at a Columbia on Monday. His request to lay a wreath at the World Trade Center site was denied.

Even though they plan to rally against him, some Columbia students said they support his appearance.

“He’s a leader of a large nation and what he says is important, even if it’s wrong,” said Dmitry Zakharov, 25, a graduate student.

Ahmadinejad has called the Holocaust “a myth” and called for Israel to be “wiped off the map.” The White House says Iran sponsors terrorism.

Rallies are planned outside Columbia and at the United Nations. The city police and the Secret Service are charged with protecting Ahmadinejad along with dozens of heads of state at the assembly.

Leaders voiced mixed opinions.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg said he wouldn’t go listen to him.

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, said, “Anyone who supports terror, pledges to destroy a sovereign nation, punishes by death anyone who ‘insults’ religion . . . denies the Holocaust and thumbs his nose at the international community, has no legitimate role to play at a university.”

The governor took a different approach. “His comments defy logic, history and reason,” Gov. Eliot Spitzer said. “He is someone whose views we scorn. But that said, he is here in the state and will be protected by the NYPD and state police and everyone else.”

Iraqis angry at Blackwater shooting,US security firm Blackwater says it acted "lawfully and appropriately" after its convoy was "violently attacked by armed insurgents" in Baghdad earlier this week. Blackwater security guards then opened fire in a busy Baghdad square.

Eyewitnesses and recovering victims of the shooting - in which 11 Iraqi civilians died - say the Blackwater account is wrong.

Asked by the BBC if anyone shot at the convoy, an Iraqi policeman, speaking anonymously, answered unequivocally: "No."

Two men shot and wounded in the incident corroborated the policeman's account.

One, a Baghdad lawyer who had four bullets removed from his body, said: "I swear to God no-one shot at the security company."

Another man, who was wounded in the back and thigh, said: "They shot us randomly - no-one shot them."

The initial US embassy account of the incident stated that there had been an exchange of fire when the Blackwater men guarding a US diplomatic convoy reacted to a car bomb "in the proximity".

The policeman witness confirmed that there had been a car bomb. But he said it was 500m (1640ft) away from the convoy, and happened at least 20 minutes before the Blackwater convoy arrived at the intersection where they opened fire.

'Criminal act'

Iraqis are very angry about the incident, from people in the street to Prime Minister Nouri Maliki.


BLACKWATER USA FACTS
Founded in 1997 by a former US Navy Seal
Headquarters in North Carolina
One of at least 28 private security companies in Iraq
Employs 744 US citizens, 231 third-country nationals, and 12 Iraqis to protect US state department in Iraq
Provided protection for former CPA head Paul Bremer
Four employees killed by mob in Falluja in March 2004

Blackwater is especially widely resented, with one Iraqi saying that the company's employees are "much worse than the American military".

One Baghdad driver told me that security convoys like those operated by Blackwater had a "bad attitude", tended to panic when they were stuck in traffic jams, and sometimes kept moving by using their vehicles to push private cars out of the way - regardless of the damage they caused.

A government spokesman talked about "this flagrant assault", and Mr Maliki has pledged to stop Blackwater from working, describing the shooting as a "criminal act".

The initial response of the Iraqi interior ministry was to terminate Blackwater's licence to operate in Iraq, and to order its employees to leave the country.

But now Blackwater is merely suspended pending the outcome of the investigation into the incident.

Wider issues

The Americans have stopped any road travel by their diplomats, who are transported in Blackwater convoys when they leave the fortified Green Zone in Baghdad.


It is not clear now long this ban will last, with a US embassy spokesperson saying it will be reviewed on a daily basis.

There is now a joint Iraqi-US committee to look at the wider issues raised by the shooting - like the status of security companies in Iraq.

For example, it is not clear whether or not they still enjoy the immunity from prosecution provided by a regulation, known as Article 17 and dating back the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), which administered Iraq after the 2003 invasion.

But the core issue here will almost certainly not be resolved.

Eleven people were killed in al-Nisur Square on 16 September. Their deaths need to be explained.

In any normal country with a properly functioning legal system, the men who opened fire would appear in court, and face a jury - who would judge their guilt or innocence on the basis of the evidence.

Even in the military they would appear at a court martial, and witnesses would be called.

But security guards in Iraq are not civilians, and they are not soldiers.

So will they ever have to face justice?

n the opening years of this century, the world was presented with a historic confrontation between the West and Islamic and Arab worlds. This confrontation has been used in the pursuit of imperial agendas. American failure in Iraq has left underlying reasons exposed. Can the damage done be repaired?

Losing hearts and minds

In its attempts to counter the backlash from its policies, Washington has failed to draw Arabs to its side, It is virtually axiomatic that the major trends of US policy in the Middle East today are directly linked to the aftermath of 11 September, 2001. The war against terrorism, the invasion of Afghanistan, the occupation of Iraq, the policies of regime change and promoting democratisation in the Arab world have shaped the political scenery of the Middle East and have led the US to become the major player in one of the world's tensest and most trouble-ridden regions. Has this superpower succeeded, in the course of the past six years, in safeguarding its interests and eliminating what it regards as its main potential threats? Otherwise put, in political-strategic terms, is Washington better off today in the Middle East than it was before September 2001?

There is no need to recapitulate the developments during this period to determine that the balance sheet of gains and losses clearly shows that the threats to American interests are much graver and more diverse than they were before 2001. Indeed, for the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union in the beginning of the 1990s there has emerged a regional axis, lead by Iran, antagonistic towards the US and keen to defy the American enterprise for regional and international hegemony.

No less dismal a failure is the Bush administration's attempt, in the aftermath of September 2001, to reshape Arab public opinion of the US and of US policy in the Middle East through the exercise of so-called instruments of "soft power". The energetic public diplomacy programme, as epitomised by the establishment of Al-Hurra, or "Freedom TV", and Sawa Radio using native Arabic speakers, fell a long way short of winning the battle for the hearts and minds of the Arab people. Recent opinion polls, many conducted by American research centres, reveal that these television and radio stations attracted only a smattering of Arab audiences and that from Morocco to Bahrain, Arab opinion of US policy is more negative than ever.

In large part this failure of public diplomacy is the product of an inappropriately designed approach, based almost exclusively as it was on the concept that governed Washington's media and propaganda campaign targeting the socialist bloc during the Cold War. Whether out of naiveté or pure ignorance, the architects of this project ignored the fundamental difference between the people of Eastern Europe, the majority of whom were fascinated by the Western way of life and who would tune into Radio Free Europe and seize whatever opportunities they could to read American and Western European publications, in spite of the considerable risks they faced in their police states, and the people of the Arab world who, when thinking about America, are concerned above all about American policies towards the Middle East and who regard these policies as hostile to Arab rights and causes and relentlessly biased in favour of Israel. Any media directed towards Arab audiences that could not address this concern, simply because it could not alter the facts, was doomed to lack credibility.

But the architects of policies that gave rise to Al-Hurra TV and Sawa Radio overlooked a more glaring difference between socialist Eastern Europe and the Arab world. In Poland and East Germany in the 1970s and 1980s, people had only the choice between their own state-run media and the more enticing state-run media from the West. Arab audiences at the beginning of the 21st century are inundated with choices, not only from land-based broadcasting stations in Cairo, Riyadh and Amman, but also from satellite networks. Al-Hurra and Sawa could not even begin to compete on the open airwaves with such much more attractive and sophisticated stations as Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya.

But there is also a technical reason for this failure. As though it was not a difficult enough task to improve the image of the US in the Arab world at a time when this superpower has forces occupying an Arab country that is undergoing horrifying tensions and upheavals, and at a time when it encouraged its Israeli ally to go on the offensive against another Arab country in the hope of altering the map of regional alliances, the American media targeting the Arab world was consistently poorly managed. Programming and the substance of programmes never went beyond the blatantly propagandistic campaign to vindicate American policies. How could it possibly succeed?

The Bush administration lost the battle to win Arab hearts and minds. It is difficult to foresee any reversal of US fortunes any time in the near future.

* The writer is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.