There were more protests in the North African nation — which was the cradle of the Arab Spring.

The unrest comes in response to the assassination of major opposition leader Chokri Belaid. He was gunned down in front of his home Wednesday in Tunis.

The funeral is set for Friday and there have been calls for massive demonstrations and a general strike.

The country’s prime minister had earlier announced plans to dissolve his government and replace it with a unity coalition.

But the prime minister’s own Islamist party rejected the plan — throwing the country into political chaos.

Freelance journalist Fadil Aliriza in Tunis says that the post-revolutionary reforms have left much to be desired.

And as the new system has not lived up to people’s expectations, he says, Chokri Belaid’s murder puts the Tunisian revolution itself at stake.

This year, though, because of the war, the festival was canceled.

Still, the Festival in the Desert and its Malian Touareg leader Manny Ansar were honored Wednesday with the Freemuse Award.

It’s given each year by a Denmark-based group to an individual or organization that “has worked for freedom of musical expression in a remarkable way.”

Manny Ansar talks about the situation in Mali, and his work on the festival over the past decade.

Islamists extremists have been pushed out of Gao, but there are still dangers on the road.

Lynch says the French military found a few explosive devices on the way to the city.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: I’m Marco Werman. This is The World. In Northern Mali, the job’s not over for French and Malian troops. They successfully pushed Islamist militants and other rebels from key cities in the North, such as Timbuktu and Gao, but they’re still working to reclaim other areas where extremists are still in control. Today, French troops moved into the city of Kidal, the last Jihadist bastion in the North. CBC’s correspondent Laura Lynch is in Central Mali. Earlier, she travelled to Gao with a French military convoy.

Laura Lynch: We came out with the convoy this morning and it was actually not as big as it was yesterday and it certainly seemed to go a lot faster than it did yesterday. Now that may have been because of the fact that, on the way up, we went very, very slowly. There were concerns about roadside bombs and in fact those concerns were validated later in the day when French forces found what turned out to be three devices on the road ahead of us. They had been looking up and scouting out for it. So we had to stop for the night. We had left earlier in the day from just about here, where I am tonight, and made our way up very, very slowly and we didn’t get to Gao because of those devices. So we ended up being on a makeshift Malian Army military base and we essentially had to get out of our cars and sleep under the stars because we had no other option. The soldiers of course had their own on the road accomodations, but we weren’t quite ready for that. So it was just something that we had to do, but we sure got our alarm the next morning and it came with a loud bang and that was when the French forces safely detonated those three devices. Only after that did we get out on the road again and we made our way again, very slowly, up to Gao with no further incidents but I will tell one thing that we saw. We saw quite a big crater in the middle of the road and that crater was left by another roadside bomb that had exploded just days ago and it killed four Malian soldiers.

Werman: Yeah. So the security situation is still dicey in some parts. There is a sense of success though with Islamists pushed out of cities like Gao and that of Timbuktu, but now there are these dire warnings about what might happen. What might transpire in Mali if the French troops up and leave. So what’s the mood among the French troops right now? What kind of sense did you get this morning?

Lynch: I think that the troops are feeling pretty darn proud of themselves. They think they’ve come in there and done a really good job very quickly and managed to get rid of the Jihadists by and large in all of the places they wanted to. There still is active fighting going on through in the city of Kidal and French jets are bombing bases where they think Jihadists are hiding out for now. So for them the battle isn’t yet over and they know that there is still work to do, but there is also a desire for them not to stay too long. To be able to see other West African nations bring forces in. To be able to see the Malian Army improve so that it can actually fight because, let’s face it, a year ago when the Jihadists moved in a lot of the Malian Army just melted away and beat a retreat and didn’t stand up to them and that’s why people, a lot of people, are so concerned about the French leaving. They don’t trust the Malian Army to protect them.

Werman: Now you’ve covered other wars other, Laura. How does this conflict in Mali compare?

Lynch: Well when you look at how quickly the main part of the main phase of this battle has ended, it’s actually quite remarkable. I mean it was almost over before the reporters got there to cover it. So in that sense, it’s been very, very different. The other that for me, as a reporter, has been interesting and at times very frustrating is the difficulty in actually being able to go and cover what’s been going on. That road that I went up today has been inaccessible to almost every Western journalist for days now. We were able to get in only because we fell in with a French military convoy. So we were able to get through those checkpoints. Now we’re told by the forces that the reason they’re not letting people through is because they’re concerned about people’s welfare. Well roadside bombs maybe make that credible, but there are other concerns among journalists that perhaps the Malian Army is more interested in preventing us from seeing what human rights organizations had accused them of, which is abuses in their own right. Abuses of those who they believe are Jihadist sympathizers. So difficult in that sense to be able to cover it. I didn’t get anywhere near the front lines to see what was going on and nor did any other journalists. They got there after the fact when the so-called liberators moved into town and the crowds filled the streets cheering them on.

Werman: Laura Lynch who is in Malti in Central Mali covering the conflict there for The World and the CBC. Thanks so much, Laura.

Lynch: You’re welcome, Marco.

Copyright ©2012 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

He had gone to Haiti and Sierra Leone, and he was committed to covering the Arab uprising.

From Tunisia, he went on to Libya, Egypt, and then Syria.

On February 21st, 2012, he arrived in Homs late at night, as the city was under heavy shelling.

He reached a house which had been improvised as an underground media center in the besieged neighborhood of Baba Amr.

A few other Western journalists were there, including American reporter Marie Colvin.

Here is Ochlik that night, surrounded by Syrian rebel fighters.

French Photojournalist Rémi Ochlik with Syrian Army Fighters one day before his death in Homs, Syria. (Photo: WikiCommons)

The very next morning, the house came under rocket fire.

Colvin and Ochlik did not make it out of the house in time.

They were killed by a rocket explosion as they were trying to escape.

Ochlik’s photographs of the Arab Spring have been collected into a book titled “Révolutions.”

It was published by Karim Ben Khelifa, a Belgo-Tunisian photojournalist who was a friend and colleague of Ochlik’s.

He runs a crowd-funding platform for visual journalism called Emphasis, which published Ochlik’s book.

The subheading for “Révolutions” is a phrase in Latin: “In Girum Imus Nocte Et Consumimur Igni”

It’s a well-known a palindrome.

It means: “We Spin Around the Night Consumed by the Fire.”

Rémi Ochlik posted that phrase on his Facebook page at the beginning of the Tunisian revolution.

His friend photographer Arnaud Brunet says Ochlik had a hunch very early on that this rebellion was going to reverberate across the Arab world.

Photographer Rémi Ochlik who was killed last year in Syria at the age of 28 (Photo: Corentin Fohlen)

Many journalists have died covering the Arab uprisings.

Last year, 17 were killed in Syria.

One of them was award-winning French photojournalist Rémi Ochlik.

He was only 28-years-old.

Ochlik documented the revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya.

Then last year, he headed out to Syria.

He made it to Homs late one night, as the city was under heavy shelling.

The very next day, on February 22, Ochlik was killed when a rocket hit the house he was holed up in with several other journalists.

American reporter Marie Colvin also died in the attack.

Ochlik is remembered by his colleagues as someone who felt invested in his mission: to tell the stories of the people at the heart of the conflicts.

One of his friends and colleagues is Belgo-Tunisian photojournalist Karim Ben Khelifa.

He runs a crowd-funding platform for visual journalism called Emphasis and has just published a book of photographs by Rémi Ochlik.

It’s called “Révolutions” and features Ochlik’s images of the Arab Spring.

Karim Ben Khelifa says it’s difficult to explain the urge many photojournalists like him have to risk their lives in war zones.

And in spite of the hardship of losing such a young and talented friend, Ben Khelifa says Ochlik’s decision to go to Syria was not a mistake.

“It is sad, but this how he decided to live and this is how he decided to die. And I think we can only be inspired by the commitment he had to the people.”

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: I’m Marco Werman and this is The World, a coproduction of the BBC World Service, PRI and WGBH in Boston. Many journalists have died covering the Arab uprisings. Last year, 17 were killed in Syria alone. One of them was award winning French photojournalist Remi Ochlik. He was 28 years old. Ochlik documented the revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, then last year he headed out to Syria. He made it to Homs late one night as the city was under heavy shelling. The next day, on February 22, Ochlik was killed when a rocket hit the house he was holed up in with several other journalists. American reporter Marie Colvin also died in the attack. One of Ochlik’s colleagues is photojournalist Karim Ben Khelifa. He’s just published a book of Remi Ochlik’s photographs from the Arab Spring. It’s called Revolutions. Ben Khelifa describes himself as a conflict photographer.

Karim Ben Khelifa: I’ve covered a lot of countries the last 15 years and like most of us doing this job, I think Remi had a sense of purpose. He’s been photographing with a lot of emotions and managed to channel those emotions into his photography. He was someone good, he was someone young, passionate and compassionate. And as I explained for Remi, I think that’s valid for a lot of us is the remediation we have there is very unclear, but we feel we need to go there. We feel we need to photograph. We have this ability to transport people into stories, into realities. And photography is such a strong medium that you can speak to people in Japan, in Africa and here in the US. You can speak to basically anyone with photographs. So I think it’s very important to record and document what’s happening in the world and not everyone is able to go to war. So for the people who have that ability, they should do it. They should do it for the sake of the others.

Werman: Now you spoke with Remi a lot about what motivated him. If you had to describe him, what kind of guy was he?

Ben Khelifa: Someone very shy, someone very humble, extremely humble. He would hate to be in the center of the attention. As a star, Le Monde was contacting journalists on the ground in Libya just to see where the experience there. Le Monde is a big, big newspaper in France, very serious. And when they called Remi Ochlik to give his account he just said is it to talk about me or is it to talk about the Libyans? And it was about him, about his experience. And he said sorry, I’m here for the Libyans. So if you want to talk about them, I’d be happy…so it shows that the young photographers would pull out this kind of opportunities to talk about himself and his work, it was about the people and I think that’s a quality you need to have to do that.

Werman: Now this exhibit at the Art Institute of Boston and book of Remi’s photos, they depict the Arab uprising, the Arab Spring. It’s called Revolutions and you kind of get the sense that he began shooting the revolution in Tunisia as it began, and then he got caught up in it…on to Tahrir Square in Cairo, then Libya and finally Syria. What did he make of the uprising?

Ben Khelifa: I think the uprising no journalist has predicted what would have happened. And the domino effect of all those countries. So he tagged along that story and sticked to it in a very beautiful way. He was with the people. He was feeling their aspiration. He has been through you know, a tremendous experience and huge amount of danger, but he sticked to that story because he wanted to tell the story of those people…and paid the dearest price, his life.

Werman: We’ve seen so many photographs that have come out of the Arab uprising from Instagram to portraits, but what’s really striking with Remi Ochlik’s pictures is his dedication to the craft of photography. I think of the victorious Libyan rebels on the tank, it’s kind of like the light in that picture makes it feel like a painting. Or the man in the violent protest in Tahrir Square on his knees and fingers aloft in peace signs. How much was he journalist, how much was he an artist?

Ben Khelifa: Oh, there is no line there, you know. Art is something that is perceived by the others. It depends on your own motivation. I would never assume that Remi would think of himself as an artist. He was a journalist, he was a witness. Now, if people decide to look at it and find art, and find emotions and classify it this way, it belongs to the people. It doesn’t belong to him.

Werman: Now, there are three photos in the book that were actually recovered from Remi’s camera just after he was killed. They were recovered by photographer William Daniels who was also in Syria. So here are the pictures, I mean these were shot February 21, last year, and on February 22 Remi was hit by a rocket and killed instantly. When you look at these pictures now, Karim, what do you see knowing what you know would happen 24 hours later?

Ben Khelifa: It’s, it’s, it is terrible to put the fate of Remi with his photographs. I don’t think he would have liked people to kind of imagine the story that could go with that, that yes, this is a photograph of a funeral and that his last photograph was photographing other people dying for a cause.

Werman: This one features like 20 men hands crossed just looking at this coffin in the night.

Ben Khelifa: Yeah, and it is a tribute to himself.

Werman: This one, man in a kathia[?5:08] , a red kathia in the dark. You see just the head of his rifle kind of popping up over his shoulder. It’s almost like a ghost.

Ben Khelifa: Yeah, yeah, the last photograph Remi actually did, very haunting for anyone who knew him or anyone who knows that story.

Werman: I mean anyone who knew Remi was deeply disturbed by his death. He was young, a rising star, they say fearless; and many said the future was his. This for example, is from William, photographer William Daniels, who wrote “His death affected me a lot. He was becoming a little famous and I was sure he was about to work with magazines he dreamed of working for, like Time. We were excited about getting to Syria. I thought okay, we’re here, we’ve come for this to be inside Bab Amir, there was no time to think maybe we’d made a mistake coming.” So Karim, what do you think, was it a mistake for Remi to go there to Homs, to Bab Amir?

Ben Khelifa: No, it wasn’t a mistake. I mean everyone going at a war knows he can get injured, can get killed. It’s part of the decision. Remi was definitely not unaware of the danger. It is sad, but this is how he decided to live and this is how he decided to die. And I think we can only be inspired by the commitment he has to the people. He paid with his life, but no, it was definitely not a mistake.

Werman: Karim, thank you very much.

Ben Khelifa: My pleasure.

Werman: The book is title Revolutions. It’s by the late photographer Remi Ochlik. We were speaking with his friend and photojournalist, Karim Ben Khelifa. Thank you very much for coming in, Karim.

Ben Khelifa: Thank you very much to you.

Copyright ©2012 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Rémi Ochlik’s photos of the Arab Spring are on exhibit at the Art Institute of Boston until February 22nd.

Al Sisi, who serves as defense minister, said the Egyptian state could fall apart if the country’s political forces don’t reconcile.

His warning comes amid a wave of protests and violence that’s left more than 50 people dead.

Cairo has seen a lot of unrest, but some of the worst violence has taken place in the city of Port Said, at the northern end of the Suez Canal.

David Kirkpatrick, Cairo Bureau chief for The New York Times, has just returned from the city.

He tells anchor Marco Werman Port Said is now in a state of anarchy.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: I’m Marco Werman, this is The World. It can’t be a good sign when the head of Egypt’s army warns about a possible collapse of the state, but that’s what General Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi did today. Al-Sisi who is also defense minister, said the Egyptian state could collapse if the country’s political forces don’t reconcile. His warning comes amid a wave of protests and violence that’s left more than 50 people dead. Some of the violence is in Cairo with unrest reminiscent of the anti-government protests that toppled longtime ruler Hosni Mubarak almost two years ago. But some of the worst violence has taken place in the city of Port Said, at the northern end of the Suez Canal. David Kirkpatrick, Cairo Bureau chief at The New York Times is on the line with us. And there’s been turmoil in Egypt for two years, David. Now there’s upheaval barely seven months into Mohammed Morsi’s presidency. Tell us what the situation in the country is like right now. What do you see is happening?

David Kirkpatrick: You know, the defense minister was in one sense stating something that we all already know, which is there’s a rising tide of lawlessness in Port Said. It’s probably correctly termed anarchy. And there’s problems here in Cairo too. You know, in Cairo there’s been street fighting sporadically since the revolt against Hosni Mubarak two years ago, but to be honest it’s been fairly confined. But this morning about 3AM that violence spilled out into an attack on a luxury hotel next to the American embassy, the Intercontinental Semiramis Hotel in Cairo. And it’s you know, the heart of the tourist business and the heart of the sort of diplomatic circle. That is a bad sign for stability here, for the tourist industry, which Egypt badly needs to try to recover. In many ways it’s ominous.

Werman: Now, David, you returned from Port Said today. Tell us what you saw this morning on the streets there. Is it different from what’s happening in Cairo?

Kirkpatrick: Yeah, ti’s very different. I mean in Cairo you have again, still relatively localized anti-government protests. In Port Said the whole city has risen up and thrown off the police. The police are cowering inside their stations, nightly battering mobs of protestors that attack them. Last night they were firing live ammunition fairly indiscriminately into the streets. And this morning I went to the site of one of those battles to follow up and I saw bullet holes in some metal trash bins. I found bullets in the street, and also saw a number of bullet holes in the side of the police station. Last night after I’d returned to the safety of the hotel I could hear the automatic weapons from my hotel room. So that’s a sign that things are really getting out of hand.

Werman: So tell us what happened last night in Port Said at the time the 9PM curfew took effect.

Kirkpatrick: Yes, just to put this in perspective, President Morsi has said a number of firm and even Draconian things. He’s talked about a state of emergency, suspending the right to trial, he imposed a 9PM curfew, and he’s called on the military to enforce the law in these three restive cities. But in fact, none of that has worked and at 9PM when the curfew took effect, citizens in all three cities by the thousands poured out in the street in protest, and as we’ve been discussing, in Port Said at least, they proceeded to attack a police station.

Werman: What is the role of the army right now? What is their relationship with President Morsi?

Kirkpatrick: That’s a very good question. As you’ll remember, the generals took power when Mubarak left. They held onto it for about a year and a half. They handed it over to Mr. Morsi in August and it appears they were paid back for that by provisions in the new constitution that granted them broad autonomy over their own institution and within the Egyptian government. So now President Morsi calls on the military to help police the streets, but is he really directing the military or asking them nicely? We don’t know. And then the following day the defense minister warns publicly that unless the civilian political leaders get it together things are sliding towards anarchy. Is he warning Morsi or just reporting the news? Again, we don’t know. People I’ve talked to who are more or less close to the military say that this current group of military leaders truly has no appetite to take on a political role. Neither do they have much enthusiasm for the idea of going out in the streets and forcing people to back down. So they’re really in a bind here. Unless the civilians can work something out, they’re caught between a loss of credibility if they fail to quell the unrest, and a loss of esteem if they use force to quell the unrest. I don’t know what’s gonna happen next.

Werman: David Kirkpatrick, Cairo Bureau chief for The New York Times, thank you.

Kirkpatrick: It’s always a pleasure.

Copyright ©2012 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

It was a concerto called “Tahrir for Clarinet and Orchestra.”

And it was inspired by the gathering of protesters in Tahrir Square. In “Tahrir,” you can hear a sense of fiery revolt and hope. But Fairouz says that hope also came with angst.

After hundreds of protesters were killed in Cairo in the 2011 uprising, Fairouz began writing music for the people who had lost their lives.

“There were very personal stories that were articulated in the square,” he said. “People died. They gave up their lives. And there were tragic stories, when the regime in Egypt in its last breath of life resorted to killing people. They’re not just revolutionary icons. They’re people’s sons and daughters. They’re people’s mothers and fathers. They’re real people. They’re family members. So there were many intimate stories to be told.”

When he received a commission from violinist Rachel Barton Pine for a solo piece, Fairouz dedicated one movement of the suite to the victims.

It’s called “For Egypt.”

Mohammed Fairouz says it’s an intimate letter to the men and women who fell in the uprisings; a lamentation.

“It runs the gamut between loneliness, desperation, anxiety, despair, and even a certain amount of hope,” he said. “It captures all of those elements of dealing with death, and there’s an underlying, eerie serenity to the music. But it is very definitely a piece that tries to move beyond treating these people as a cause, and treats them as human beings. These are human losses. It looks beyond the political, to the realm of the human.”

Fairouz says the violin has existed in the Arab culture for thousands of years and is particularly well suited to this musical tribute.

“The violin has this tremendous ability to imitate the human voice,” Fairouz said.

At one point in the piece, the melody becomes particularly plaintive and inflections of the Arabic melodic scale –or Maqam– can be heard in bent notes. Fairouz meant for this moment to be a plea.

“You can almost imagine a mother or a father imploring their child not to go out into the square,” he said, “saying: ‘you’ll not be safe.’ But young people have the idealism to say ‘we want to change, we can’t live in an un-free world for ever, we have to change our society,’ and they go out, and something terrible happens to them, as really did happen to so many young people and old people, and people in the square. They were murdered.”

In the middle of the piece, the music crescendos and gets more intense, seeming almost angry and defiant.

“There’s a sense of ‘how could we let this happen to our own people?’,” said Fairouz. “And in a way, it’s all of these complex emotions that I wanted to capture in this movement ‘For Egypt’ that comment strongly on the role of the artist in this political environment, because we have a tremendous ability I think, and an advantage, especially in music, in that we can look beyond, cut through to the socio-political, right through to the human level.”

Toward the end, the violin solo reaches a quieter mood.

“It winds down, I think, into a place of serenity and acceptance,” said Fairouz, “and to some degree, of hopefulness that, in the end, perhaps all of those people who gave up their lives, did not do it for nothing.”

Mohammed Fairouz: “For Egypt” from “Native Informant”
Performed by Rachel Barton Pine.
The CD will be available on Naxos American Classics, March 2013

Those are the dominant news stories — and not just in the US.

In fact, if you live in France — a country that is directly affected by both stories — it could be a tough call as to which one is getting more attention.

Pierre Haski is co-founder and editor of the French news and political analysis website, Rue89

He says Algeria is definitely at the top of people’s concerns.

But walk into a bar he says, and it’s all about Lance Armstrong.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: I’m Marco Werman and this is The World, a co-production of the BBC World Service, PRI, and WGBH-Boston. It’s okay to postpone the swearing-in of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez for a new term. That’s what the head of Venezuela’s Supreme Court said today. The swearing-in had been scheduled, as per the country’s constitution, for tomorrow. But Venezuela’s congress voted to postpone it indefinitely as Chavez continues to be too sick to travel from Cuba, where he underwent emergency cancer surgery last month. The BBC’s Sarah Grainger is in Caracas. So it sounds like Chavez can take as much time as he wants now. What happens next?

Sarah Grainger: Well, the Supreme Court in its ruling said that a date would be fixed for the inauguration once the issue of Mr. Chavez’s health had been resolved. And as you’ve said, the National Assembly has given him essentially an infinite amount of time to recover from his latest surgery. So essentially now it’s a waiting game to see when and if he does make it back from Cuba, and if he’s able to take up his duties as president again.

Werman: So Sarah, does that leave Vice President Nicolas Maduro in charge also for an indefinite period of time?

Grainger: It does, the Supreme Court essentially leaving the status quo in place. So Nicolas Maduro as vice president is acting as president in Mr. Chavez’s absence. Obviously other members of the ministers in the Socialist party having a large input. The leader of the National Assembly, Diosdado Cabello, also a key figure, but Mr. Maduro essentially, nominally running the country at the moment.

Werman: Wouldn’t it be better for the ruling party to just conduct a quick election now, so the chosen one, Nicolas Maduro, anointed by Chavez, can get elected and continue the Chavez legacy?

Grainger: Well, we don’t know all the details about President Chavez’s ill health and his condition. One assumes that the fact that they’re holding out to give him this opportunity to come back suggests that they think that might be a possibility. The other thing to remember is that Mr. Chavez is such a powerful figure, he’s such a charismatic person, such an important figure for the socialist party, that they’ll be very reluctant to admit or to accept that his period of serving as president over. So I think they’re trying to keep things as they are and give him as much time as possible to see if he can come back and continue as president. Having said that, Mr. Chavez has been absent now for almost a month, and not just absent, he’s been silent. We’ve heard nothing from him, we’ve seen nothing of him. And so, in other scenarios in other countries, perhaps, that might be time enough, given that he’s suffering obviously some severe health problems, to start thinking about a transition and to start thinking about at least an interim president rather than just having the vice president acting up.

Werman: Sarah, what have you heard on this from the opposition at this point?

Grainger: Well really, they’ve run out of options of things to do within Venezuela. The Supreme Court and the National Assembly are the two institutions that really had a say in this and it was obvious from fairly early on that they were going to side with the government. I mean, you know, the socialist party has a majority in the National Assembly so no surprise when they voted to give Mr. Chavez more time to recover and postpone the inauguration. The opposition has made moves already to contact the Organization of American States to appeal to them. I think obviously international relations, looking at other governments in the region perhaps for support for their cause is really the only option they have open at the moment. But the OAS doesn’t have a very good relationship with Mr. Chavez’s government and it’s hard to see the government here changing its stance just because it comes under some pressure from governments who are sympathetic to the opposition’s cause.

Werman: The BBC’s Sarah Grainger in Caracas. Thank you.

Grainger: Thank you.

Copyright ©2012 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Just Monday, there was news of the latest massacre of 11 elephants — killed by poachers for their ivory tusks in Kenya.

Jeffrey Gettleman covers the illicit ivory trade for The New York Times, in Nairobi, Kenya.

He said that as a pound of ivory can fetch upwards of $1,000 in Beijing, there is little chance this violent and illegal trade will slow down anytime soon in Central Africa.

To make matters worse, Gettleman said it’s almost impossible to catch the poachers.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: Rising demand from China and elsewhere in Asia drives lots of industries these days, even illegal ones like ivory smuggling. Authorities in China have reported a sharp increase in the amount of illegal ivory shipments they intercept. And of course just yesterday there was news of the latest massacre of elephants, killed by poachers for their ivory tusks in Kenya. Jeffrey Gettleman covers the illicit ivory trade for The New York Times. He’s in Nairobi. Jeff, you wrote that this was one of the worst episodes of poaching in Kenya. Tell us what exactly happened.

Jeffrey Gettleman: Eleven elephants, who all were in one same family, were shot dead by poachers and had their ivory hacked out in one of the more scenic and visited parks in the country, Tsavo East National Park. And what really scared people is that that level of poaching could wipe out an entire, you know, 11 elephants in one fell swoop, is reminiscent of what was happening in Kenya in the 1980s when poaching was completely out of control, and half the elephants in Africa–went from like 1.2 million to 600,000 elephants in a span of ten years until the poaching was brought under control. And a lot of people are worried that we’re heading into a similar situation now.

Werman: What are the numbers today on poaching?

Gettleman: So it’s really hard to figure out exactly what’s happening out there, because elephants live deep in the forests and savannahs. Often they’re killed by poachers and nobody ever finds the carcasses. They decompose, they’re ripped apart by scavengers like hyenas and vultures. So sometimes you don’t know exactly how many elephants are getting killed. But that said, the best estimates indicate that there are tens of thousands of elephants being poached every year across Africa, somewhere between ten, twenty, thirty thousand, maybe more, and that is a higher number than any time since the mid-to-late 1980s.

Werman: Wow. What is the population approximately of elephants in Kenya?

Gettleman: I think it’s around 50,000, forty to fifty thousand, and in Africa, the total continent, there was 1.2 million in 1980. In 1990 there was 600,000.

Werman: I’m just curious, how do events like this affect Kenyans?

Gettleman: They get really upset, because Kenya derives a lot of income and pride and identity from its wildlife. Tourism is one of the biggest industries in Kenya. It generates over a billion dollars per year and something like five or six hundred thousand jobs. So it’s really scary to Kenyans to have their wildlife being wiped out, especially when the demand for the ivory is 8,000 miles away in China.

Werman: I mean, given how lucrative ivory is, if you look just at the case of Kenya, is it time for the Kenyan government to think about a full-scale military operation to protect the elephants, and not just park ranger protection?

Gettleman: You know, they sometimes call on the military to help out in some of these African countries, but like in Congo, they use the military to fight poachers. It’s just the distances are too vast. And it’s like the war on drugs. I mean, think of how much money the American government and others spend on trying to intercept drug shipments and to patrol the skies, and the seas, and the borders. You know, billions of dollars and lots of resources and the drugs are still hitting the streets in the United States. So the idea is, no matter how much you beef up law enforcement, that’s not going to stop it if there’s just this insatiable demand. And so the efforts a lot of the wildlife groups are trying to do right now is trying to convince people in China that buying ivory is bad. It doesn’t just result in the death of elephants, it results in the death of people, and they’re trying to change the culture. And to me what’s interesting, and I haven’t been to China, but what’s interesting is these countries are getting increasingly modern and sophisticated, yet they still adhere to these traditional values and beliefs. Vietnam’s economy is booming, but people there still believe rhino horn powder can cure cancer, and there’s absolutely no scientific proof of that. So things like these beliefs are so deeply seated that it’s going to be very difficult to reverse them. But everybody I talk to say that’s the answer and that’s the only answer.

Werman: The New York Times’ Jeff Gettleman speaking with us from Nairobi. Much obliged, Jeff. Thank you.

Gettleman: Glad to help.

Copyright ©2012 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

But former ambassador Christopher Hill says there isn’t much harm that can come of the trip. Hill said while it’s clear to North Korean leaders that Bill Richardson is not a US envoy on an official mission, Richardson’s visit could help release an American citizen currently detained in Pyongyang.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: North Korea got some high-profile visitors today: Google’s execdutive chairman, Eric Schmidt, and former New Mexico governor, Bill Richardson. The two men say they are on a private humanitarian mission. The U.S. State Department, however, did not approve their trip to the Communist paraiah nation. Former U.S.-North Korea envoy, Christopher Hill, says the trip gives him a sense of déja vu.

Christopher Hill: Well, frankly, I’ve seen this movie before, and it often happens when not a lot is happening or not anything good is happening. So, Bill Richardson has cultivated relationships there over the years, and I think he’s seeing if he can do something. And I usually just put these things into one of two categories: are they harmful, or are they not harmful? And I really don’t see the harm in this.

Werman: So, let’s talk about the two main people on this trip. You mentioned Bill Richardson and Eric Schmidt. Why is the head of Google in North Korea? Do you know?

Hill: Well, you’ll have to ask him, but he’s someone who I think likes to get around and observe things first-hand. When I ambassador in Iraq he showed up there for several days. So, I think he likes to kind of get a sense of a place, and certainly North Korea, for better or worse, remains one of these very exotic places in the world.

Werman: And the other person on this trip, four-day trip to Pyongyang, is former New Mexico governor, Bill Richardson. He has taken official and unofficial to North Korea in the past decade. He says this is a humanitarian mission. What’s his goal here?

Hill: Well, I think he’s seeking the release of an American citizen who has been held there for several weeks now, maybe months. The difference is that, in the past, while the administration has never supported his trips, they’ve never opposed them in the way the State Department spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, did last week. So, obviously not all is well on this trip. But, he’s someone who’s gone there several times. I don’t think the North Koreans expect him to deliver much for them. I think they understand sort of where he stands in the pecking order in Washington, so I don’t really see any negativity that could come as a result of it.

Werman: What kind of credibility and rapport does Bill Richardson have with leaders in North Korea that would get this American prisoner freed?

Hill: Well, first of all, he’s a very, very pragmatic person. He would sit down with Milosevic, smoke cigars with him. He would talk to a lot of people that many people outside of the professional diplomatic circles would try to stay away from. So, he’s very relaxed, very informal. Because he’s not carrying any official capacity, he can basically say what he thinks. And sometimes just say what he thinks the other person wants to hear. So, I think he’s got, you know, a lot of bandwidth to do what he wants to do, and I suspect he’s hoping that he can gain the release of an American and then at the end of the day no one will criticize a trip that actually comes up with some kind of good thing.

Werman: Now, Christopher Hill, earlier you said that no harm can really come from such trips like this, but the State Department isn’t happy with this trip and its timing right after this rocket launch. So, it seemed that not potentially any harm could come from this trip.

Hill: Well, my own view is that the North Koreans know Bill Richardson pretty well. And they know the fact that he is not a sort of administration surrogate. So, I think what the State Department would be worried about is whether the North Koreans would think that he’s some kind of envoy from the Obama administration. I think that concern is a little misplaced. I think the North Koreans understand that this does not signal any kind of effort by the Obama administration to ameliorate relationships in North Korea, especially after the recent missile launch. And I think that’s precisely the kind of moment where Bill Richardson tries to enter, and if something can come about because, after all, it can’t get any worse, he could take a little credit for it.

Werman: Former ambassador, Christopher Hill, now dean of the Korbel School of International Studies. Thank you very much.

Hill: Thank you.

Copyright ©2012 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Chavez is due to appear at a swear-in ceremonony in Caracas on Januray 10th, and it seems unlikely he will be there.

Reporter Phil Gunson in Caracas explains the constitutional path ahead in case President Chavez was unable to show up.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: I’m Marco Werman, this is The World. In six days, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is supposed to be sworn in for this fourth term in office. It’s unlikely that he’ll make it back to Caracas by then. Chavez has been in Cuba ever since undergoing emergency cancer surgery on December 11. Officials in Venezuela have been tight lipped all along, but today, the country’s information minister admitted that Chavez is suffering from a respiratory deficiency caused by a severe lung infection. Reporter Phil Gunson is in Caracas. He notes that Venezuela’s constitution is ambiguous about what should happen if Chavez isn’t sworn in on January 10.

Phil Gunson: A reasonable reading of the constitution suggest that if Chavez is unable to attend the swearing in ceremony then the parliament has to decide really whether this is a temporary or a permanent absence. If he’s temporarily absent, then in theory the chairman of parliament should stand in for him while he recovers. If he’s permanently absent, the chairman of parliament still stands, but we move immediately within 30 days for a presidential election.

Werman: Right, tell us who is the head of parliament?

Gunson: Well, the current head of parliament is a man called Diosdado Cabello. He’s a former army lieutenant, took part in Chavez’ coupe attempt in 1992, regarded as in some respects, a hardliner, although not so much on the ideological front. He’s very bellicose belligerent man, unlike the other main contender for the leadership, if you’d like, who is Nicolas Maduro, the vice president and foreign minister, who is the man that before Christmas Chavez named as his successor, should he be unable to resume the presidency. There’s a small complication here as well, which is that tomorrow the new parliamentary session begins and the first business on the parliamentary agenda is to elect the parliamentary leadership for the next session. It’s possible that although I think it’s unlikely, that Diosdado Cabello, the man I mentioned, might lose that job. But I think it’s more than likely that he will stay there, among other things because the Chavista movement needs to demonstrate that it’s unified, that it’s united.

Werman: So if Hugo Chavez doesn’t show up for one reason or another, how much time does the government then have to hold an election and get someone installed in the presidency who’s not just a placeholder?

Gunson: Well, if Chavez is deemed to be temporarily absent, he can in theory be absent for a total of 180 days. After 90 days there has to be a decision taken by parliament as to whether to renew it or not, but this could in theory go on for months if Chavez survives. On the other hand, if he’s deemed to be permanently absent, permanently incapacitated or dead actually, then there has to be an election within 30 days. In those circumstances the government is better placed. They’ve just come from a presidential election back on October, which Chavez won comfortably by 10 or 11 percentage points, and if they have a man in Nicolas Maduro, who’s the clear candidate and Chavez’ dying wish, if you like, that Maduro should be the next president, the opposition on the other hand, they come from that defeat, from a defeat in December as well in regional elections, and they’re obviously not as well prepared as the government in the sense that they, like the rest of us, don’t really know what’s going on with Chavez’ health, whereas the government does.

Werman: Phil, what is the mood in Caracas right now with the ailing president in Cuba?

Gunson: Well, it’s obviously the main topic of conversation and I think the best way to sum it up is probably nervousness, uncertainty, a lot of deep concern, obviously, on the part of his supporters in particular. Chavez is a very exceptional politician. He has a very deep emotional bond with millions of Venezuelans who feel his absence and his illness as if it was that of a family member. So even beyond the ranks of the Chavista moment, people are very concerned because we don’t really know what’s going to happen. Almost any scenario is possible.

Werman: We’ve been speaking with freelance journalist Phil Gunson in Caracas about what next in the protocol of succession for the ailing president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. Phil, thanks so much.

Gunson: You’re welcome, thank you.

Copyright ©2012 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

The TV network — based in Qatar and funded by the government there — was once seen by many Americans as a network that sympathizes with terrorists.

This view may change with the network’s purchase of the an American television news channel.

This week, Al Jazeera bought Current TV, founded and owned by former vice-president Al Gore and his associates.

The deal was reportedly close to $500 million.

The New York Times Media Reporter Brian Stelter said this move represents a huge leap in audience numbers for the Qatari-owned channel.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: I’m Marco Werman. This is The World. Al Jazeera used to seek respectability. The TV network, based in Qatar and funded by the government there, was once seen by many Americans as a network that sympathizes with terrorists. For years Al Jazeera has struggled to overcome that perception. Now it’s trying to do so by purchasing a new channel in the US. The channel, sold this week to Al Jazeera, is Current, a cable news outlet founded and owned by, among others, former vice-president Al Gore. Al Jazeera says it plans to shut it down and replace it with its own programming, most of it produced here in the US. Brian Stelter writes about this in The New York Times Media Decoder blog. So, Al Jazeera’s been incredibly persistent in its attempt to reach American audiences, Brian, so this marks what seems to be a bold move for them. Given, though, that this is a country that hasn’t given Al Jazeera a big audience or much respect, what do they want from this market?

Brian Stelter: I think Al Jazeera looks at the United States the way all other global media companies do, and sees that it won’t be complete, so to speak, without access to the audience here. The United States is an influential, affluent audience of trend-setters, so to speak, of diplomats, of agenda-setters, all of the people that you want to at least have the opportunity to talk to, even if they tend not to always tune in. And until now, it’s been very hard for Al Jazeera to reach those people. This gives them another way to do it.

Werman: How many Americans does Al Jazeera International currently reach, do you know?

Stelter: It’s on in a handful of cities, including Washington, DC, New York, Toledo, Burlington, and then that’s about it. It is streamed on the Internet, so if you really want to try hard you can watch online, but we’re talking about one or two percent of the country at most that now accesses it.

Werman: Now, Current TV is running on Time-Warner Cable, which was planning to drop it, and are apparently dropping it even faster now that Al Jazeera owns it. So how would Al Jazeera run without the support of a major cable company?

Stelter: It appears that Al Jazeera has received support from the other companies that currently carry Current, and that’s ComCast, that’s DirecTV, Dish, AT&T, Verizon. They’ve all consented to this sale. They say they’ll continue to carry this channel when it becomes Al Jazeera. But without Time-Warner Cable, they will lose about 10 million homes at the outset. Al Jazeera says it will start off somewhere around 40 million homes. That’s a huge leap forward for them. But I suspect Al Jazeera might be willing to pay distributors for the right to be on their systems. There is some precedent for that. FoxNews, when it started in the mid-1990s, paid to get on the cable system here in New York City, for that very reason. They needed to reach that influential audience in New York City in order to have a channel. Of course, Al Jazeera, because it is owned by the government of Qatar, has even deeper pockets than the owners of FoxNews. So it’s possible they’re willing to cut deals to get on here.

Werman: I’m wondering if Al Jazeera has a model for breaking into the American market. I mean, I think of another international broadcaster, BBC, that opened up BBC America. Is there a similarity?

Stelter: There is. You know, the BBC put on a nightly newscast from Washington and Al Jazeera says it’s going to put on a lot of programming from New York and other US cities. It says that about 60 percent of its programming here in the US will come from the US. The other 40 percent will come from Doha, where Al Jazeera English is based and where Al Jazeera Arabic is based. Clearly they believe that to get an American audience, they are going to have to produce news in America, and they are going to have to cover the US the way they cover the rest of the world.

Werman: And what do you think, Brian? Do you think it will make a difference being on its own network here in the United States? Can they build an audience here, do you think?

Stelter: I think it will be very tough going, especially in the beginning, to build an audience, just as it was for FoxNews, as it was for MSNBC. But we’re sort of in a new mini-golden age of international news here in the United States, with access to the BBC World News, and with access to French and Russian and Chinese and other sources. Even if the audiences aren’t big, at least viewers have the opportunity to access them. In the past, they didn’t even have the choice.

Werman: Brian Stelter, New York Times Media Reporter. Very good to speak with you. Thanks.

Stelter: Thank you.

Copyright ©2012 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

The latest proof of that is an official investigation launched this week against a popular Egyptian television satirist.

Bassem Youssef allegedly insulted President Morsi on his TV show, “Al Bernameg.”
The program is modeled after Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show.

And Youssef was actually a guest on The Daily Show last June.

But Youssef could be in serious trouble with the Egyptian government at this point.

On his program, Youssef was seen sweet-talking and hugging a red furry pillow carrying President Morsi’s image, while mocking his speech style.

Bassem Youssef with pillow featuring Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi. (Photo: YouTube Screen Grab)

An Islamist lawyer claims Youssef has insulted the president and undermined his authority by mocking him in such a public way.

Correspondent Noel King is in Cairo and has been following the story.

King said this is another example of the cultural stalemate that has been going on for a couple of months between outspoken media personalities and supporters of Islamist president Mohammed Morsi.

Watch a segment of Bassem Youssef’s show starring himself (with captions).

The sandwich reached the Florida shores when those workers began migrating to America.

It has since become a regular food item on America’s global menu.

But perhaps no one can put together a “Cubano” like Cuban restaurants in Miami.

Reporter Steve Dolinsky has been sampling a few in Little Havana and gives his recommendations to anchor Lisa Mullins.