Africa

Author Alison Pargeter picks up the debate about Libya and al Qaeda in this morning's Times (£), dismissing the idea that a new "jihadist hotspot" is being created. As I wrote some time ago, it is difficult even for people who have travelled in eastern Libya to know anything for sure. I hear from sources in Benghazi that the Islamists number among some of the better troops - having had training and experience in fighting. They offer what one person called "small unit cohesion", in contrast to poorly-organised rebel force. But they do not seem to run or even hold sway over the movement. The bigger question in Libya right now, however, seems to be this: who can survive a stalemate - Colonel Ghaddafi or the rebels? Both face serious problems.

There is one particular question swirling around when it comes to Libya: how brittle is the regime and its military arm? An answer is now slowly emerging, and one that looks like good news for the rebels - if also yet more proof of Gaddafi's depravity. Reuters is running a story about refugees inside Libya, predominantly from sub-Sahara, being detained, beaten and robbed of their identity papers by Libyan soldiers only to be offered money to take up arms against the rebels. Fergo Fevomoye, a 23-year-old refugee who crossed the Libyan-Tunisian border, told Reuters: "They will give you a gun and train you like a soldier. Then you fight the war of Libya. As I am talking to you now there is many blacks in training who say they are going to fight this war.

We're pushing for a no-fly zone. France is pushing for a no-fly zone. And now the Arab League is pushing for a no-fly zone too. The news fresh out of Cairo is that the organisation has voted in favour of restricting airspace above Libya. It will now push the UN to do the same, which is a considerably more proactive than the stance it adopted earlier this week. While one vote doesn't really seal anything, this is potentially a crucial moment. NATO has made regional support a key condition of a no-fly zone – and now it has it, officially. Those who have been sniffing around for alternatives to the UN and its resolutions will regard this as a positive step.

The momentum behind the Arab Spring revolutions appears to have been checked – for now. The Libyan domino hasn't fallen. But there's more unrest to come in North Africa. On March 21, a group called Youth for Change will hold mass protests throughout Sudan. Youth for Change (sinister name) are inspired, obviously, by what has happened in Egypt and Tunisia. Their aim, they say, is to ‘to rewrite the constitution with the voice of the people in order to hold national general elections: '[We march] to reclaim our dignity as human beings first and second as Sudanese ...that has been violated by the regime when it killed thousands of our brothers in Darfur, the north, the east, and all the documented incidents to dishonour the Sudanese nation.

If Muammar al-Gaddafi weren't still in charge of a country, then his speech for Libyan State TV would have been straight-up hilarious. There he was, all spittle-flecked bombast, rattling on and on about the "bunch of rats and cats" who are trying to depose him, and blaming their actions on, erm, hallucinogenic drugs. "We Libyans have resisted the US and Britain in the past," he said, "and will not surrender." He also, predictably, mentioned Israel. It was like some living caricature of a mad dictator. As it is, though, we ought to dwell on some of the more ominous aspects of Gaddafi's address. He is not standing down, he said – giving the remarkable excuse that, as he is not a President, he has no position to resign from.

I wish I could be more enthusiastic about the events in Egypt and Tunisia – but, as I say in my News of the World column (£) today, the citizens of the Arab world all too often have a choice between a Bad Guy and a Worse Guy. Egypt looks like its choice is between the status quo, the Muslim Brotherhood or a military coup. This is not a 1989-style revolution, there is no Arabic equivalent of Scorpions singing Wind of Change. Successful revolutions normally have a well-organised alternative government, with a clear route towards democracy. Where is the Egyptian Lech Walesa, or the Tunisian Vaclav Havel?

Today, voters in the southern part of Sudan head to the polls in a referendum which will determine whether they should form their own state or remain part of Sudan, Africa's largest country. Secession – the most likely outcome of the referendum, and called for in the 2005 peace agreement that ended 21 years of civil war between the country's north and south – would mean that the government in Khartoum could lose not only territory, but also over 80 percent of the revenues it receives from oil exportation, as most of the oil is located in the would-be state of South Sudan. As a result, many fear that bloodshed will follow the poll.