US embassy staff evacuated as Muhammad film protests spread

Workers in Khartoum and Tunis advised to leave.

The US has withdrawn non-essential staff from its embassies in Sudan and Tunisia, the Associated Press has reported. The move follows protests in Muslim-majority countries this weekend, galvanised by an anti-Islamic film made in the US. While some of the demonstrations have been peaceful, protestors have reportedly been killed and wounded in clashes with police in Sudan. Earlier this week, the US ambassador to Libya was killed, along with three others, in the eastern city of Benghazi.

Many demonstrators have referenced the film "Innocence of Muslims", made by a Christian group in America, but there are suggestions that some unrest had planned before the release of the film.

The Guardian's Julian Borger reports:

US officials have said they believe outrage over the film may have been used by an extremist Libyan group, Ansar al-Sharia, as cover and a diversion for an assault on the Benghazi consulate that had been long planned for the 11th anniversary of the 11 September attacks. The president of the Libyan assembly, Yousef al-Megariaf, agreed. During a visit to Benghazi, he described the storming of the consulate as "pre-planned to hit at the core of the relationship between Libya and the United States". Small anti-American demonstrations in Damascus and Tehran appeared to have been facilitated by the authorities there.

So far, protests have been reported in Tunisia, Iraq, Pakistan, Bahrain, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Turkey, Yemen, Jordan, Sudan, Palestine and India, with smaller demonstrations in Western countries such as Australia and Britain. 

In Tunisia, cars outside the US embassy in Tunis were set on fire and protesters scaled its walls.

In Khartoum, Sudan, the German embassy was torched, and its diplomats took refuge in the British embassy next door. The foreign secretary, William Hague, said: "Sudanese police attended the scene, but demonstrators were able to break down a perimeter wall and cause minor damage to the compound. They did not attempt to gain access to the British embassy building."

Protesters also attempted to smash the windows of the US embassy:

In Iran, Israeli flags were burned alongside US ones, and women held up anti-Jewish placards:

There were similar scenes in Kut, Iraq:

In Cairo, Egypt, stones were thrown at riot police during clashes near the US embassy. The Muslim Brotherhood withdrew calls for nationwide protests, saying they would instead participate in a "symbolic demonstration".

In Srinagar, in the Kashmir Valley, demonstrations entered their second day today. The video sharing website YouTube has blocked access to the film in India in the hope of restraining the violence.

In Sanaa, Yemen, the US embassy was targeted and security forces fired warning shots and tear gas to disperse the crowds:

In Turkey, prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan told protesters that the film should not be used as a pretext for violence, as anti-US slogans were chanted in Beyazit Square in Istanbul:

In Sydney, Australia, there was a small demonstration outside the US Consulate General:

In Palestine, protesters shouted slogans after Friday prayers at Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem:

In Britain, an American flag was burned in front of the US embassy in London:

(All photos: Getty Images)

In Khartoum, protesters targeted the German and US embassies. Photo: Getty
Wikipedia.
Show Hide image

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not refuse to condemn the IRA. Please stop saying he did

Guys, seriously.

Okay, I’ll bite. Someone’s gotta say it, so really might as well be me:

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not, this weekend, refuse to condemn the IRA. And no, his choice of words was not just “and all other forms of racism” all over again.

Can’t wait to read my mentions after this one.

Let’s take the two contentions there in order. The claim that Corbyn refused to condem the IRA relates to his appearance on Sky’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme yesterday. (For those who haven’t had the pleasure, it’s a weekly political programme, hosted by Sophy Ridge and broadcast on a Sunday. Don’t say I never teach you anything.)

Here’s how Sky’s website reported that interview:

 

The first paragraph of that story reads:

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been criticised after he refused five times to directly condemn the IRA in an interview with Sky News.

The funny thing is, though, that the third paragraph of that story is this:

He said: “I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

Apparently Jeremy Corbyn has been so widely criticised for refusing to condemn the IRA that people didn’t notice the bit where he specifically said that he condemned the IRA.

Hasn’t he done this before, though? Corbyn’s inability to say he that opposed anti-semitism without appending “and all other forms of racism” was widely – and, to my mind, rightly – criticised. These were weasel words, people argued: an attempt to deflect from a narrow subject where the hard left has often been in the wrong, to a broader one where it wasn’t.

Well, that pissed me off too: an inability to say simply “I oppose anti-semitism” made it look like he did not really think anti-semitism was that big a problem, an impression not relieved by, well, take your pick.

But no, to my mind, this....

“I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

...is, despite its obvious structural similarities, not the same thing.

That’s because the “all other forms of racism thing” is an attempt to distract by bringing in something un-related. It implies that you can’t possibly be soft on anti-semitism if you were tough on Islamophobia or apartheid, and experience shows that simply isn’t true.

But loyalist bombing were not unrelated to IRA ones: they’re very related indeed. There really were atrocities committed on both sides of the Troubles, and while the fatalities were not numerically balanced, neither were they orders of magnitude apart.

As a result, specifically condemning both sides as Corbyn did seems like an entirely reasonable position to take. Far creepier, indeed, is to minimise one set of atrocities to score political points about something else entirely.

The point I’m making here isn’t really about Corbyn at all. Historically, his position on Northern Ireland has been pro-Republican, rather than pro-peace, and I’d be lying if I said I was entirely comfortable with that.

No, the point I’m making is about the media, and its bias against Labour. Whatever he may have said in the past, whatever may be written on his heart, yesterday morning Jeremy Corbyn condemned IRA bombings. This was the correct thing to do. His words were nonetheless reported as “Jeremy Corbyn refuses to condemn IRA”.

I mean, I don’t generally hold with blaming the mainstream media for politicians’ failures, but it’s a bit rum isn’t it?

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.

0800 7318496