Libya’s Blood For Oil: The Vampire War

Libya's Blood For Oil: The Vampire War

By wmw_admin on March 30, 2011

By Susan Lindauer – via The People's Voice March 28, 2011

Who are we kidding? The United States, Britain and NATO don't care about bombing civilians to contain rebellion. Their militaries bomb civilians every day without mercy. They have destroyed most of the community infrastructure of Iraq and Afghanistan before turning their sights on Libya. So what's really going on here?

According to the CIA, the following never happened…

Last October, US oil giants— Chevron and Occidental Petroleum— made a surprising decision to pull out of Libya, while China, Germany and Italy stayed on, signing major contracts with Gadhaffi's government. As the U.S. Asset who started negotiations for the Lockerbie Trial with Libyan diplomats, I had close ties to Libya's U.N. Mission from 1995 to 2003. Given my long involvement in the Lockerbie saga, I have continued to enjoy special access to high level intelligence gossip on Libya.

Last summer that gossip got juicy!

About July, I started hearing that Gadhaffi was exerting heavy pressure on U.S. and British oil companies to cough up special fees and kick backs to cover the costs of Libya's reimbursement to the families of Pan Am 103. Payment of damages for the Lockerbie bombing had been one of the chief conditions for ending U.N. sanctions on Libya that ran from 1992 until 2003. And of course the United Nations forced Gadhaffi to hand over two Libyan men for a special trial at The Hague, though everybody credible was fully conscious of Libya's innocence in the Lockerbie affair. (Only ignorant politicians trying to score publicity points say otherwise.)

Knowing Gadhaffi as well as I do, I was convinced that he'd done it. He'd bided his time until he could extort compensation from U.S. oil companies. He's a crafty bastard, extremely intelligent and canny. That's exactly how he operates. And now he was taking his revenge. As expected, the U.S. was hopping mad about it. Gadhaffi wasn't playing the game the way the Oil Bloodsuckers wanted. The Vampire of our age—the Oil Industry—roams the earth, sucking the life out of every nation to feed its thirst for profits. Only when they got to Libya, Gadhaffi took on the role of a modern-day Robin Hood, who insisted on replenishing his people for the costs they'd suffered under U.N. sanctions.

Backing up a year earlier, in August 2009 the lone Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing that killed 270 people, Abdelbasset Megrahi, won a compassionate release from Scottish prison. Ostensibly, the British government and Scottish Courts granted Megrahi's request to die at home with dignity from advance stage cancer—in exchange for dropping a legal appeal packed with embarrassments for the European Courts. The decision to free Megrahi followed shocking revelations of corruption at the special Court of The Hague that handled the Lockerbie Trial. Prosecution witnesses confessed to receiving payments of $4 million each from the United States, in exchange for testimony against Megrahi, a mind-blowing allegation of judicial corruption.

The Lockerbie conviction was full of holes to begin with. Anybody who knows anything about terrorism in the 1980s knows the CIA got mixed up in heroin trafficking out of the Bekaa Valley during the hostage crisis in Lebanon. The Lockerbie conspiracy had been a false flag operation to kill off a joint CIA and Defense Intelligence investigation into kick backs from Islamic Jihad, in exchange for protecting the heroin transit network.

According to my own CIA handler, Dr. Richard Fuisz, who'd been stationed in Lebanon and Syria at the time, the CIA had established a protected drug route from Lebanon to Europe and on to the United States. His statements support other sources that "Operation Corea" allowed Syrian drug dealers led by Monzer al-Kassar (also linked to Oliver North in the Iran-Contra scandal) to ship heroin to the U.S. ON Pan Am flights, in exchange for intelligence on the hostages' whereabouts in Lebanon. The CIA allegedly made sure that suitcases carrying heroin were not searched at customs. Nicknamed the "Godfather of Terror," Al Kassar is now serving a prison sentence for conspiring with Colombian drug cartels to assassinate U.S. nationals.

Building up to Lockerbie, the Defense Intelligence team in Beirut, led by Maj. Charles Dennis McKee and Matthew Gannon, suspected that CIA infiltration of the heroin network might be prolonging the hostage crisis. If so, the consequence was severe. AP Reporter Terry Anderson got chained in a basement for 7 years, while 96 other high profile western hostages suffered beatings, mock executions and overall trauma. McKee's team raised the alarms in Washington that a CIA double agent profiting from the narco-dollars might be warning the hostage takers whenever their dragnet closed in. Washington sent a fact-finding team to Lebanon to gather evidence.

On the day it was blown out of the sky, Pan Am 103 was carrying that team of CIA and FBI investigators, the CIA's Deputy Chief assigned to Beirut, and three Defense Intelligence officers, including McKee and Gannon, on their way to Washington to deliver a report on the CIA's role in heroin trafficking, and the impact on terrorist financing and the hostage crisis. In short, everyone with direct knowledge of CIA kickbacks from heroin trafficking died on Pan Am 103. A suitcase packed with $500,000 worth of heroin was found in the wreckage. It belonged to investigators, as proof of the corruption.

The punch line was that the U.S. State Department issued an internal travel advisory, warning that government officials should get off that specific flight on that specific day, because Pan Am 103 was expected to get bombed. That's right, folks! The U.S. had prior knowledge of the attack.

Unforgivably, nobody told Charles McKee or Matthew Gannon. But other military officials and diplomats got pulled off the flight—making room for a group of students from Syracuse University traveling stand by for the Christmas holidays.

It was a monstrous act! But condemning Megrahi to cover up the CIA's role in heroin trafficking has struck many Lockerbie afficiandos as grossly unjust. Add the corruption of purchased testimony– $4 million a pop— and Megrahi's life sentence struck a nerve of obscenity.

It struck Gadhaffi as grievously offensive, as well—The United Nations had forced Libya to fork over $2.7 billion in damages to the Lockerbie families, a rate of $10 million for every death. Once it became clear the U.S. paid two key witnesses $4 million each to commit perjury, spook gossip throughout the summer was rife that Gadhaffi had taken bold action to demand compensation from U.S. (and probably British) oil corporations operating in Libya. More than likely, Libya's demands for kick backs and compensation extended to other European oil conglomerates as well—particularly France and Italy—who are now spearheading attacks on Libya.

I knew last summer there would be trouble. Payback would be a b—tch on both sides. You don't lock an innocent man in prison for 10 years on bogus charges of terrorism, and expect forgiveness. The United States and Britain had behaved with remarkable selfishness. You've got to admit that Gadhaffi's attempt to balance the scales of justice demonstrated a flair of righteous nationalism.

Alas, Gadhaffi was playing with fire, no matter how justified his complaint. You don't strike a tyrant without expecting a tyrant to strike back.

And that's exactly what's happening today.

Don't kid yourself. This is an oil war, and it smacks of imperialist double standards. Two articles by Prof. Chossudovsky at the Global Research Centre are must reading: "Operation Libya and the Battle for Oil: Redrawing the Map of Africa" and "Insurrection and Military Intervention: The US-NATO Attempted Coup d'Etat in Libya?"

There is simply no justification for U.S. or NATO action against Libya. The U.N. charter acknowledges the rights of sovereign nations to put down rebellions against their own governments. Moreover, many observers have commented that plans for military intervention appear to have been much more advanced than U.S. and European leaders want to admit.

For myself, I know in my gut that war planning started months before the democratization movement kicked off throughout the Arab world—a lucky cover for U.S. and European oil policy. Perhaps too lucky.

As Chossudovsky writes, "Hundreds of US, British and French military advisers arrived in Cyrenaica, Libya's eastern breakaway province" on February 23 and 24— seven (7) days after the start of Gadhaffi's domestic rebellion. "The advisers, including intelligence officers, were dropped from warships and missile boats at the coastal towns of Benghazi and Tobruk." (DEBKAfile, US military advisers in Cyrenaica, Feb. 25, 2011) Special forces on the ground in Eastern Libya provided covert support to the rebels." Eight British Special Forces commandos were arrested in the Benghazi region, while acting as military advisers to opposition forces, according to the Times of London.

We're supposed to believe the United States, Britain and Europe planned, coordinated and executed a full military intervention in 7 short days— from the start of the Libyan rebellion in mid-February until military advisers appeared on the ground in Libya on February 23-24!

That's strategically impossible.

Nothing can persuade me that Gadhaffi's fate wasn't decided months ago, when Chevron and Occidental Petroleum took their whining to Capitol Hill, complaining that Gadhaffi's nationalism interfered with their oil profiteering. From that moment, military intervention was on the drawing board as surely as the Patriot Act got stuck in a drawer waiting for 9/11.

The message is simple: Challenge the oil corporations and your government and your people will pay the ultimate price: Give us your oil as cheaply as possible. Or die.

Don't kid yourself. Nobody gives a damn about suffering in Libya or Iraq. You don't bomb a village to save it. The U.S., Britain and NATO are the bullies of the neighborhood. The enforcers for Big Oil.

Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan have something in common. They have vast and extraordinary oil and mineral riches. As such, they are all victims of what I call the Vampire Wars. The Arab Princes get paid off, while the bloodsuckers pull the life blood out of the people. They're scarcely able to survive in their own wealthy societies. The people and the domestic economy are kept alive to uphold the social order, but they are depleted of the nourishment of their own national wealth.

The democratization movements are sending a warning that I don't think Big Oil, or their protectors in the U.S. and British governments understand or have figured out how to control. The Arab people are finished with this cycle of victimization. They've got their stakes out, and they're starting to figure out how to strike into the heart of these Vampires, sucking the life blood out of their nations.

And woe to the wicked when they do!

-###-

This article may be reprinted in full or part with attribution to the author.

Former U.S. Intelligence Asset, Susan Lindauer covered Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Syria/Hezbollah from 1993 to 2003. She is the author of Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq

 

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=23184

 

Humanitarian Intervention - Again?

Humanitarian Intervention - Again?

Written by James Bissett Wednesday, 30 March 2011

As in the case of Serbia twelve years ago, Canada's air force is once again bombing a country presenting no threat to the safety or security of our country. In fact, we are at war. There has been no declaration of war. There has been no serious attempt to intervene peacefully to help resolve the conflict. There has been no debate in our Parliament. There was no suggestion of sending a mission to Libya to assess the situation on the ground.

More seriously, there has been no satisfactory explanation of what the bombing is designed to do and little idea of who it is we are fighting for.

The United Nations Security Council has authorized a no-fly zone to be enforced over Libyan skies but it is not clear what exactly this means. In the meantime some Western nations – including Canada – have interpreted it to mean they are authorized to attack and destroy Qaddafi's forces fighting against an armed rebellion to overthrow the dictator. Other countries do not agree. Among them are: Germany, Russia, China, India, Brazil and, more importantly, the Arab League.

Some have argued the aim is to prevent the Libyan despot, Muammar Qaddafi, from slaughtering thousands of his people, but there has been no evidence that this was his intention before the bombing took place.

President Sarkozy of France has made it clear that, as far as the French are concerned, the intervention is to change the regime and replace Qaddafi. France has already recognized the rebels in Benghazi as the legitimate representatives of the Libyan people. This extraordinary step seems to rule out any possibility of negotiating with Qaddafi for a peaceful solution to the armed struggle. It also implies what amounts to a demand for his unconditional surrender – a demand that almost always leaves your opponent no choice but to fight to the bitter end.

As for the United States we are not sure what President Obama has in mind. Initially, he was hesitant to lead his country into yet another war against a Muslim nation. However, a hyped-up media and a number of his close advisors urged him to intervene militarily. Having done so, he was anxious to at least pretend that the lead in the continuing conflict would be taken by others, and the "others" now seem to have been designated as some of the NATIO countries – minus Germany and Turkey.

The waves of unrest and upheavals in the Arab world have created great hope but at the same time potential danger. Who or what might replace the deposed despots is not known, One thing seems clear, none of the Muslim countries involved is ready for, or even desires to have, western style democracy.

For the most part the values of these Muslim countries are not western values, and lurking in the background is the menacing threat of religious extremism. This may be especially true in Libya, which has produced a high proportion of suicide bombers and mujahedeen fighters in Afghanistan and Iraq.

As a general rule it is unwise to take sides in a civil war unless our own vital interests are at stake. What is taking place in Libya today is a civil war and we find ourselves playing the role of air force for the rebels. Unfortunately, we really have no idea of who they are or what they represent. Moreover, we do not know where the conflict will lead, how long it might last or the broader implications for the region after the fighting ends.

All of this fiasco has turned out to be a colossal mess and is unlikely to end well. This is not unusual when the excuse for intervention is based primarily on so-called humanitarian reasons.

Military intervention for humanitarian reasons is not a new phenomenon. Even Hitler justified his invasion of Czechoslovakia on the grounds that the ethnic Germans in the Sudetenland were being mistreated and abused by their fellow Czechoslovaks.

The concept has, however, found renewed popularity following the failure to prevent the Rwanda genocide. It gained momentum during the civil war in Bosnia and later in Kosovo, when charges of ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity were levelled against the Serbs. The NATO intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo - despite strong evidence to the contrary - continues to be hailed as highly successful operations.

The Balkan experience led directly to the new doctrine of the "responsibility to protect" or R2P – the right to intervene in a sovereign state to protect populations there who are at risk. R2P has become the new term for humanitarian intervention and has laid out the conditions to be met for such intervention. The key provision of this doctrine is that if a state is failing to protect its citizens from mass atrocities, and peaceful measures to do so are not working, the international community has the responsibility to intervene at first diplomatically, and then more coercively, and at last resort, with military force.

It is worth noting that the United Nations Charter does not permit the use of military force for humanitarian intervention. However, in 2005 the General Assembly did adopt the principle of R2P, provided that the parties to the dispute "first of all seek a solution through negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice."

If such peaceful means have been tried but have failed then and only then can the United Nations Security Council authorize the use of force. Clearly none of these peaceful methods were tried before the decision was taken to bomb Qaddafi's forces.

R2P has many loyal advocates both in Canada and the United States. In Canada, our former foreign minister, Lloyd Axworthy, and retired General Romeo Dallaire are leading proponents of the doctrine. In the United States, one of its foremost advocates is Samantha Powers, author, foreign policy analyst, and now member of the US National Security Council. Powers was appointed to the NSC by President Obama and is said to have strongly influenced the President to intervene in Libya.

Powers exemplifies the potential dangers of having a doctrine that invites the violation of national sovereignty on the basis of alleged human rights abuse. For human rights proponents like her there are few conflict situations that do not deserve military intervention. In 2002, during the second Palestinian Intifada, she pushed hard for US military intervention against Israel with the aim of establishing and protecting a Palestinian state.

It is fortunate that R2P is not a mandatory obligation for the international community. It provides a framework for intervention and guidelines to be followed but it remains the responsibility of the United Nations Security Council to authorize military intervention in a sovereign state. The veto power remains a last resort to prevent the violation of sovereignty for whatever reason.

There is great danger in assuming that the western democratic nations can exercise wise judgment about when they should intervene in a conflict taking place in developing countries. There is even more danger in assuming that the intervention is motivated by real humanitarian concerns and not for selfish political or foreign policy objectives as was clearly the case in Bosnia and Kosovo.

The R2P concept is too easily high-jacked by leaders who see an opportunity to gain political mileage at home by playing the role of protecting the rights of suffering victims in far away places. If the country to be punished is headed by a dictator and is not too powerful to take on, then the risk is worth taking.

If the intervention can be in concert with other allied nations so much the better. For Canada, acting as part of NATO becomes particularly important as it was in the bombing of Serbia, and is now in the case of Libya. Quite apart from the substance of the issues involved Canada feels it must go along with our NATO partners whether the military action is justified or not. Our political leaders do not need to consult Parliament because NATO has decided the matter for us.

This is not a satisfactory situation for a democratic country. Other NATO member countries do not always feel obliged to follow the NATO lead if they do not agree with a military solution to the problem. Greece refused to take part in the bombing of Serbia in 1999 and Germany has refused to join its NATO partners in the Libya intervention.

Going to war is a serious business and it should be only done with the full agreement of the Parliament of Canada after a vote in the House of Commons. It is well to remember that at the outbreak of the Second World War it was only after debate in the House of Commons and a vote that Canada declared war on Germany.

Decisions about war and peace that affect the safety and security of our armed services and citizenry are the paramount expression of a nation's sovereignty. Canada should not abdicate that responsibility in any circumstances.

http://policystudies.ca/library-mainmenu-76/96-international-affairs/411-humanitarian-intervention-again

Association of journalists of Kosovo and Metohija

Posstovani, 

U prlogu imate saopsstenje za javnost Drusstva novinara Kosova i Metohije. 

Srdaccan pozdrav, 

Tijana Arsich - Sekretar DNKiM.

 

The Association of Journalists of Kosovo and Metohija and Association of Journalists of Serbia are warning on appearance of censorship, political partiality and unprofessional behavior of Radio and Television of Kosovo (RTK).

Editors of RTK interrupted with no explanation in regular broadcasting time on 23 March 2011 in 18' the show "Slobodno srpski", of the author Budimir Nicic. This kind of "technical intervention" in the programme of the media institution that intends to become a public service do not happen often in the world and proves power of individuals or individual to use the principle "I don't like this" and edit the programme of public service broadcaster.

The show „Slobodno srpski" in which guest was Momcilo Trajkovic, politician and witness of 17 March riots in 2004, was delivered three days in advance and addition was full transcript of the show. This fact leads to the point that some of politicians or powerful people did not like the show and gave the order to interrupt it and "give the viewership something that suits them". After interruption of the show, programme was continued with classic music and soon after patriotic songs.

In explanation sent to the author Budimir Nicic with reasons why the show was stopped was said „that if someone speaks about the crimes against the Serbs, than it should be spoken about crimes of Serb over the Albanians." Association of journalists is of the opinion that good analyses of RTK programme is more than welcomed and will result with unilateralism in portraying the past on public service TV.  Balance and search for analogy in the past based on the principle "Look what they did to us" or "what happened to you is because of our victims" is dangerous and initiates hate and evil. The management of RTK is looking for justification of 17 March riots in 2004 and is asking from the author to emphasize that reason for riots are actually crimes that Serbs did over Albanians?

In the part of explanation of the Management that refers to the views of the politician Momcilo Trajkovic, was said "we all knew his accusations" and "we all know his interest". The Association is warning the public service, that should be the mirror of pluralism and different opinions, cannot use this kind of totalitarian statements.  Who intends to become in one society a person that will say and decide that we "know everything"? It seems that RTK knows what we all know! By presenting the interest of the viewers, author of the show and already mentioned pluralism we are asking for „Slobodno srpski" to be back on RTK.

Key question in this issue is accusation that journalist didn't respect the other side. What is the other side of 17 March 2004, who is the other side, where shall we look for it, why there is no other side of the terrible crime that happened in peace? These questions do not have answers, no trial processes for organizers of riots and what is the most important, for us professionals, there is no investigative journalism that RTK could enforce/initiate. Maybe this is a good chance that someone dare and search for the answers on these questions because exactly the report on drowning of the children broadcasted on RTK was the trigger for 17 March riots.

The Association thinks that journalist Budimir Nicic did not violate professional standards and is warning expert and even wider public on a dangerous censorship, influence of politics and interruptions on RTK. This problem, among many others, clearly leads to the fact that relations of RTK with new TV channel in Serbian language (guaranteed by International documents on Kosovo) should be reconsider.

 

President of the Association of  journalists of Kosovo and Metohija

 

Zeljko Tvrdisic

 

Responsibility to protect or right to meddle

  

Responsibility to protect or right to meddle?

The Libya no-fly zone is either a humanitarian mission or an excuse to meddle, depending on who you ask. Gregg Carlstrom Last Modified: 24 Mar 2011 14:47

The "responsibility to protect" concept, a justification for the no-fly zone in Libya, remains a controversial idea [EPA] While the Western-led military coalition in Libya continues to debate the exact goals of its offensive there, a broader discussion is playing out in some foreign capitals: did the United Nations even have the authority to authorise the action? The week-old bombing campaign in Libya has prompted a debate over what's known as "responsibility to protect," or R2P, the convention that the world has a responsibility to prevent war crimes and protect vulnerable populations. Supporters of the no-fly zone over Libya like to call it a humanitarian operation, and argue that days of sorties - mostly by American, British and French planes - have prevented wider civilian casualties. Refugees International, for example, praised the no-fly zone as "international intervention to protect the people of Libya." Critics have reached exactly the opposite conclusion: The Chinese government said on Tuesday that the no-fly zone would lead to a "humanitarian disaster," and warned against "causing even more civilian casualties through the use of armed force." (China was one of five UN Security Council members to abstain from voting on resolution 1973, which authorised the no-fly zone and bombing campaign.) A 'historic breakthrough'... The R2P concept rose to prominence largely because of the genocides in Bosnia, Rwanda and Darfur. It became something of an official UN position in 2005, when hundreds of heads of state publicly endorsed the idea at a meeting of the General Assembly in New York. And it was explicitly invoked in resolution 1973, which declared a core goal of "protect[ing] civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack." The resolution is based on chapter VII of the United Nations charter, which gives the Security Council wide-ranging authority to identify and stop "threats to the peace" and "acts of aggression." Chapter VII has been used to justify a variety of UN actions in the past, including those in Somalia, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan. But experts say this is the first time it has been explicitly used in the context of protecting civilians. "The explicit invocation of R2P within a chapter VII resolution is a significant, perhaps even historic breakthrough in our stated commitment to end mass atrocities," said Jonas Claes, a scholar at the Washington-based US Institute of Peace. One of the most prominent advocates for R2P, US academic Samantha Power, is also a senior member of Barack Obama's national security council. "Every human being's rights now have claim on international responsibility and protection," Power wrote in a 2006 book, Realizing Human Rights. "No country can now say that the human rights of any human being subject to its jurisdiction is no one else's business." The R2P concept considers military intervention a last resort, something to be used only after diplomatic measures fail. Advocates of the no-fly zone in Libya say it has met that requirement: international condemnation did not stop Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, nor did economic sanctions on high-level government officials. … or a dangerous precedent? But are Libya's internal problems an international issue to begin with? Critics say no: Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, for example, said earlier this week that "we want Libya to resolve its internal matters without foreign intervention." Gaddafi's offensive against the rebels in eastern Libya has undoubtedly killed civilians - and he has vowed to go "house to house," killing protesters - but critics say Libya's civil war is ultimately a Libyan issue, and that the "responsibility to protect" goes too far in giving powerful countries a mandate to intervene in the affairs of others. They are quick to point out that the R2P concept is applied selectively. Gaddafi's crimes against his own people were apparently enough to justify international intervention, but the leaders of Yemen and Bahrain - both of whom have ordered brutal crackdowns on peaceful protesters - face no such threat. The R2P concept is also abstract enough to cover, and legitimise, a range of military interventions. Consider Saddam Hussein, whose ghastly human rights record includes the use of chemical weapons against his own people. Proponents of the American war in Iraq could have argued that toppling Hussein was an effort to "protect civilians." It has done no such thing, of course; more than 100,000 civilians have been killed since the invasion, according to classified US military records. But R2P could nonetheless be used as a justification for "regime change"; indeed, the British foreign office said yesterday, the ultimate goal in Libya is a country "not run by Gaddafi," an objective that seemingly goes beyond the mandate of simply protecting civilian life. Those criticisms aside, though, some of the harshest critics of the Libya campaign could also be accused of acting out of self-interest. Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin both condemned the airstrikes, the former calling it a bid to seize Libya's oil reserves, the latter likening it to the Crusades. It's unclear, one week in, whether the campaign in Libya will oust Gaddafi or simply enforce a stalemate. Equally unclear is whether it will set a precedent for future interventions.

Source: Al Jazeera

Content on this website is for general information purposes only. Your comments are provided by your own free will and you take sole responsibility for any direct or indirect liability. You hereby provide us with an irrevocable, unlimited, and global license for no consideration to use, reuse, delete or publish comments, in accordance with Community Rules & Guidelines and Terms and Conditions.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/03/2011324121253913547.html

Libya: Protecting "civilians" or helping "rebels"?

22.03.2011 | 13:08

 

Libya: Protecting "civilians" or helping "rebels"?

 

 

In Libya, have certain members of the international community have once again fallen into the trap of the Balkans Syndrome, when guilt at not having acted earlier provoked a knee-jerk reaction with disastrous consequences: the travesty of international law called Kosovo? In Libya, are they protecting "civilians" or are they helping "rebels"?

 

 

Praiseworthy though it is to have preoccupations about the safety of fellow human beings, it is also the duty of the leaders of the international community to think carefully before they act and not fall into the trap of the Balkans Syndrome, when guilt at not having acted earlier provoked a knee-jerk reaction with disastrous consequences: the travesty of international law called Kosovo. And since when can a heavily armed group of bearded Islamist fanatics be  described as "unarmed civilians"?2878.jpeg

 

However, does anyone in the international community these days act or react through the goodness of their hearts, or through self-interest and the obligation to protect the groups that put them in power? How democratic are the "democratic" societies, when the real power is held by dark groups of grey barons who pull the corporate vested interest strings behind the scenes, and when Governments are elected depending upon how good the leader of the party looks on TV?

 

How democratic and free is the media when information is controlled and presented in a nice tidy package in which the truth is often suppressed or ignored and lies and misinformation manipulated?

 

Praiseworthy though it is to have preoccupations about the well-being of people, let us look beneath the surface of the issues surrounding the attack against Libya, led by the USA, UK and France.

 

Firstly, was the internal situation in Libya a question of a popular uprising against oppressive standards of living while a clique of elitists bled the country dry? No, because Libya's wealth was distributed and will be, so long as Muammar Al-Qathafi retains an influence. Or was the situation in Libya fuelled by "rebels" aided and abetted and supplied from the borders to the West (Tunisia) and East (Egypt) whose governments had conveniently "fallen"? Let us take a look at where the "rebellion" started.

 

It did not start in Tripoli, the capital - where Muammar Al-Qathafi is so obviously still massively popular, it started in the traditionally separatist province of Cyrenaica (Benghazi) and on the western frontier.

 

Secondly, where are these "unarmed civilians"? It is difficult to imagine which TV set David Cameron, Barack Obama or Nicolas Sarkozy have been watching, because the "unarmed civilians" I have seen on the bank of TV sets in my editing center, linked in to a number of different stations, show heavily armed bearded marauding gangs of thugs yelling "Allahu Akhbar". Now where have I heard that before?2880.jpeg

 

Thirdly, have they got it wrong again? Have they jumped the gun and been taken in by those whose intentions are neither democratic, nor that clear, and probably eventually anti-western? Remember the Mujaheddin, those "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan who destroyed women's rights in that country and then went on to morph into the Taleban? The thank you note was to be 9/11.

 

Fourthly, UN Resolution 1973 is sufficiently vague to have catered for a massive headache among the members of the international community. One can only imagine the shenanigans behind the scenes before its hasty adoption - it was obvious from the words of the French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé that it was to be passed even before it was voted for.

 

The wording of its Paragraph 4, on the Protection of Civilians, quotes Paragraph 9 of Resolution 1970 (2011), which expressly forbids the export of weapons to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. Whoever, then, is supplying the "rebels", is breaking international law; the wording of Paragraph 4 of Resolution 1973 (2011) mentions the authority "to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya".

 

Does this not go against the precepts under international law that member states are free to protect themselves in cases of armed insurrection? And where does one draw the line between "protecting civilians" and attacking the Government forces, allowing the "civilians" to advance to Tripoli, as has been suggested in numerous media outlets?

 

Fifthly, how can a group of people in uniforms, armed with heavy weaponry, be considered "civilians" and therefore how can any substantial military attack on the forces of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya be anything except a breach of international law, occasioning interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state?

 

Sixthly, has President Obama gone to Congress for permission to wage war, as he is supposed to do? Has David Cameron informed those of his citizens whose maternity ward has just been closed, whose local school has been shut down, whose relative have been taunted by gangs of drunken thugs and drug addicts because the police force has been savagely reduced, quite how much money he is spending?

 

For those in Britain waiting for an operation, unable to get a hospital bed and whose social security benefits have been cut, sending them into misery, I am happy to inform them that the cost of a mission per aircraft per hour is between 35.000 and 50.000 pounds, or 200,000 per plane, per day. The cost of a back-seat role in a prolonged no-fly operation is in the region of 300 million pounds per year.

 

To do what? Help a marauding bunch of bearded fanatics seize power on Europe's doorstep?

 

Finally, how many of the governments involved in this manic campaign have actually bothered to research the tremendous amount Colonel Al-Qathafi has done not only for his people, but also for Africa? How many of them have stated that he was one of the first voices to ring out against Al Qaeda and international terrorism? How many have explained that he took the poorest country in the world and turned it into the one with the highest human development indices in Africa?2882.jpeg

 

Why was a session arranged at the UNO later this month to praise Muammar Al-Qathafi  for his human rights record? On his policy of religious tolerance... a report which praised him for protecting "not only political rights but also economic, social and cultural rights", praising him for his treatment of minorities and for the human rights training of the security forces...

 

Once again, the international community has been hasty, has fallen into the trap of the Balkans Syndrome, when Clinton wanted to take attention away from his midriff after what he did in the Oval Office, turning the White House into a whore house. This time around, who are the three leaders with most popularity problems at home? Barack Obama, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy, whose approval ratings are beneath those of Muammar Al-Qathafi's.

 

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

 

Pravda.Ru

http://www.moscowtopnews.com/

Libya: Is This Kosovo All Over Again?

Another NATO Intervention?

Libya: Is This Kosovo All Over Again?

By DIANA JOHNSTONE

 

L ess than a dozen years after NATO bombed Yugoslavia into pieces, detaching the province of Kosovo from Serbia, there are signs that the military alliance is gearing up for another victorious little "humanitarian war", this time against Libya.  The differences are, of course, enormous.  But let's look at some of the disturbing similarities.

A demonized leader. 

As "the new Hitler", the man you love to hate and need to destroy, Slobodan Milosevic was a neophyte in 1999 compared to Muammar Qaddafi today.  The media had less than a decade to turn Milosevic into a monster, whereas with Qaddafi, they've been at it for several decades.  And Qaddafi is more exotic, speaking less English and coming before the public in outfits that could have been created by John Galliano (another recently outed monster).  This exotic aspect arouses the ancestral mockery and contempt for lesser cultures with which the West was won, Africa was colonized and the Summer Palace in Beijing was ravaged by Western soldiers fighting to make the world safe for opium addiction. 

The "we must do something" chorus. 

As with Kosovo, the crisis in Libya is perceived by the hawks as an opportunity to assert power.  The unspeakable John Yoo, the legal advisor who coached the Bush II administration in the advantages of torturing prisoners, has used the Wall Street Journal to advise the Obama administration to ignore the U.N Charter and leap into the Libyan fray. "By putting aside the U.N.'s antiquated rules, the United States can save lives, improve global welfare, and serve its own national interests at the same time," Yoo proclaimed.  And another leading theorist of humanitarian imperialism, Geoffrey Robertson, has told The Independent that, despite appearances, violating international law is lawful. 

The specter of "crimes against humanity" and "genocide" is evoked to justify war.

As with Kosovo, an internal conflict between a government and armed rebels is being cast as a "humanitarian crisis" in which one side only, the government, is assumed to be "criminal".  This a priori criminalization is expressed by calling on an international judicial body to examine crimes which are assumed to have been committed, or to be about to be committed.  In his Op Ed piece, Geoffrey Robertson made it crystal clear how the International Criminal Court is being used to set the stage for eventual military intervention.  The ICC can be used by the West to get around the risk of a Security Council veto for military action, he explained.

"In the case of Libya , the council has at least set an important precedent by unanimously endorsing a reference to the International Criminal Court. […]  So what happens if the unarrested Libyan indictees aggravate their crimes - eg by stringing up or shooting in cold blood their opponents, potential witnesses, civilians, journalists or prisoners of war?"  [Note that so far there are no "indictees" and no proof of "crimes" that they supposedly may "aggravate" in various imaginary ways.)  But Robertson is eager to find a way for NATO "to pick up the gauntlet" if the Security Council decides to do nothing.]
  
"The defects in the Security Council require the acknowledgement of a limited right, without its mandate, for an alliance like NATO to use force to stop the commission of crimes against humanity. That right arises once the council has identified a situation as a threat to world peace (and it has so identified Libya, by referring it unanimously to the ICC prosecutor)."

Thus referring a country to the ICC prosecutor can be a pretext for waging war against that country!  By the way, the ICC jurisdiction is supposed to apply to States that have ratified the treaty establishing it, which, as I understand, is not the case of Libya – or of the United States.  A big difference, however, is that the United States has been able to persuade, bully or bribe countless signatory States to accept agreements that they will never under any circumstances try to refer any American offenders to the ICC.  That is a privilege denied Qaddafi.

Robertson, a member of the UN justice council, concludes that: "The duty to stop the mass murder of innocents, as best we can if they request our help, has crystallized to make the use of force by Nato not merely 'legitimate' but lawful."

Leftist idiocy. 

Twelve years ago, most of the European left supported "the Kosovo war" that set NATO on the endless path it now pursues in Afghanistan. Having learned nothing, many seem ready for a repeat performance.  A coalition of parties calling itself the European Left has issued a statement "strongly condemning the repression perpetrated by the criminal regime of Colonel Qaddafi" and urging the European Union "to condemn the use of force and to act promptly to protect the people that are peacefully demonstrating and struggling for their freedom."  Inasmuch as the opposition to Qaddafi is not merely "peacefully demonstrating", but in part has taken up arms, this comes down to condemning the use of force by some and not by others – but it is unlikely that the politicians who drafted this statement even realize what they are saying.

The narrow vision of the left is illustrated by the statement in a Trotskyist paper that: "Of all the crimes of Qaddafi, the one that is without doubt the most grave and least known is his complicity with the EU migration policy…"   For the far left, Qaddafi's biggest sin is cooperating with the West, just as the West is to be condemned for cooperating with Qaddafi.  This is a left that ends up, out of sheer confusion, as cheerleader for war.

Refugees.

The mass of refugees fleeing Kosovo as NATO began its bombing campaign was used to justify that bombing, without independent investigation into the varied causes of that temporary exodus – a main cause probably being the bombing itself. Today, from the way media report on the large number of refugees leaving Libya since the troubles began, the public could get the impression that they are fleeing persecution by Qaddafi.  As is frequently the case, media focuses on the superficial image without seeking explanations.  A bit of reflection may fill the information gap.  It is hardly likely that Qaddafi is chasing away the foreign workers that his regime brought to Libya to carry out important infrastructure projects.  Rather it is fairly clear that some of the "democratic" rebels have attacked the foreign workers out of pure xenophobia.  Qaddafi's openness to Africans in particular is resented by a certain number of Arabs.  But not too much should be said about this, since they are now our "good guys".  This is a bit the way Albanian attacks on Roma in Kosovo were overlooked or excused by NATO occupiers on the grounds that "the Roma had collaborated with the Serbs".

Osama bin Laden. 

Another resemblance between former Yugoslavia and Libya is that the United States (and its NATO allies) once again end up on the same side as their old friend from Afghan Mujahidin days, Osama bin Laden.  Osama bin Laden was a discreet ally of the Islamist party of Alija Izetbegovic during the Bosnia civil war, a fact that has been studiously overlooked by the NATO powers.  Of course, Western media have largely dismissed Qaddafi's current claim that he is fighting against bin Laden as the ravings of a madman.  However, the combat between Qaddafi and bin Laden is very real and predates the September 11, 2001 attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.  Indeed, Qaddafi was the first to try to alert Interpol to bin Laden, but got no cooperation from the United States.  In November 2007, the French news agency AFP reported that the leaders of the "Fighting Islamic Group" in Libya announced they were joining Al Qaeda.  Like the Mujahidin who fought in Bosnia, that Libyan Islamist Group was formed in 1995 by veterans of the U.S.-sponsored fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s.  Their declared aim was to overthrow Qaddafi in order to establish a radical Islamist state.  The base of radical Islam has always been in the Eastern part of Libya where the current revolt broke out.  Since that revolt does not at all resemble the peaceful mass demonstrations that overthrew dictators in Tunisia and Egypt, but has a visible component of armed militants, it can reasonably be assumed that the Islamists are taking part in the rebellion.

Refusal of negotiations. 

In 1999, the United States was eager to use the Kosovo crisis to give NATO's new "out of area" mission its baptism of fire.  The charade of peace talks at Rambouillet was scuttled by US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who sidelined more moderate Kosovo Albanian leaders in favor of Hashim Thaci, the young leader of the "Kosovo Liberation Army", a network notoriously linked to criminal activities.  The Albanian rebels in Kosovo were a mixed bag, but as frequently happens, the US reached in and drew the worst out of that bag.

In Libya, the situation could be even worse. 

My own impression, partly as a result of visiting Tripoli four years ago, is that the current rebellion is a much more mixed bag, with serious potential internal contradictions. Unlike Egypt, Libya is not a populous historic state with thousands of years of history, a strong sense of national identity and a long political culture.  Half a century ago, it was one of the poorest countries in the world, and still has not fully emerged from its clan structure. Qaddafi, in his own eccentric way, has been a modernizing factor, using oil revenues to raise the standard of living to one of the highest on the African continent.  The opposition to him comes, paradoxically, both from reactionary traditional Islamists on the one hand, who consider him a heretic for his relatively progressive views, and Westernized beneficiaries of modernization on the other hand, who are embarrassed by the Qaddafi image and want still more modernization.  And there are other tensions that may lead to civil war and even a breakup of the country along geographic lines.

So far, the dogs of war are sniffing around for more bloodshed than has actually occurred.  Indeed, the US escalated the Kosovo conflict in order to "have to intervene", and the same risks happening now with regard to Libya, where Western ignorance of what they would be doing is even greater.

The Chavez proposal for neutral mediation to avert catastrophe is the way of wisdom.  But in NATOland, the very notion of solving problems by peaceful mediation rather than by force seems to have evaporated.

 

Diana Johnstone is the author of Fools Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions. She can be reached at  diana.josto@yahoo.fr

 

Cameron, Clinton and Sarkozy: A threat to international peace

Cameron, Clinton and Sarkozy: A threat to international peace

16.03.2011 | 13:17

What happens when you get protagonists on the international political scene with serious problems at home? In a word, trouble. Like the western media, these politicians got the Libya story wrong from day number 1, raising serious questions as to their capacity to perform in their positions.

Why, for instance, have the western media been caught lying about air strikes that never existed, about bombing of civilians when the buildings they were supposed to have bombed are still in pristine condition; why have there been stories about "Gaddafy" turning the full weight of his heavy weaponry against "unarmed civilians" when what we can see clearly is marauding gangs of terrorists and thugs committing acts of savagery, arson and wanton destruction?

Why have David Cameron, Hillary Clinton and Nicolas Sarkozy failed to mention - even once - the massacre of supporters of Muammar Al-Qathafi in Benghazi? Not one or two people, not soldiers, but no less than 212 (two hundred and twelve) unarmed civilians - these, yes, were indeed unarmed - in Benghazi (where else)? Murdered in cold blood.

Why have they failed to mention - even once - the origin of all the mercenaries fighting in Libya - not only to support the government forces but also fighting alongside the "rebels" from Benghazi - a separatist region. Britain and France both experienced long and bloody fights against separatists, in Northern Ireland, in Brittany, in Corsica.

Why have Cameron, Clinton and Sarkozy failed to mention the fact that the Libyan Government welcomes an international peace plan proposed by President Chavez of Venezuela and the setting up of an International Peace Commission, why have they failed to mention the fact that Muammar Al-Qathafi suggested that a team from the UN Human Rights Commission should come to Libya to make an investigation into what happened?

Why have they failed to mention the fact that Libya's oil wealth has been ploughed back into the economy, giving the Libyans the best standard of living in Africa, with the best human development indicators in the continent? Why have they failed to mention that before Al-Qathafi took over, Libya was officially the poorest country in the world, with per capita income at less than 50 USD a year?

Why have they failed to mention that Libyans have free housing, free healthcare and free education services? Have they implemented such policies in their countries? Why have they failed to mention that those who wish to set up a farm are given land for free, plus livestock, seeds and equipment - plus a farmhouse?

Let us be honest. On the domestic political front, Cameron, Clinton and Sarkozy want and need a Falklands, a Kosovo, an Afghanistan or an Iraq, they need to find a "tinpot dictator" who "oppresses his people" who is easy to isolate, to take the eyes off their own oppressive policies at home as they destroy the social fabric of their countries and render the futures of millions of young people hopeless.

Let us be honest, on the commercial front, their oil companies wish to renegotiate their contracts under their own terms - and not just in Libya, but in the whole of Africa. It is as one of the fathers of the African Union and one of the architects of African Unity where Al-Qathafy has angered the western vested commercial interests, so used to imperialistic and colonialist policies which saw Africa's resources going one way - their way.

Now that Al-Qathafi is trying to change that trend, he is called a monster and "has to be removed because he is a threat". THEY are the threat. They always have been.

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

Pravda.Ru

http://www.moscowtopnews.com/

Tim Judah, The Balkans slip-slide away

The Balkans slip-slide away

By Tim Judah

10.03.2011 / 04:44 CET

Testing the value of two hoary old clichés about the importance of keeping the European Union engaged in the western Balkans.

Just because something is a cliché does not mean it is not true. A week in which the EU has brought together Serbia and Kosovo in direct talks for the first time in three years is a good time to recall two of the golden oldies about the EU's foreign policy, in particular toward the western Balkans. The first is that if we cannot get things right in our own backyard, how on earth are we supposed to pull our weight anywhere else? The second is that as soon as Balkan countries stop moving forwards in terms of EU integration, they begin to slip backwards.

Let's draw up a balance sheet and start with Macedonia. This year marks the 20th year of its existence as an independent state and the tenth year since the EU helped nip in the bud the conflict with ethnic-Albanian guerrillas.

In 2005, Macedonia became a candidate for EU membership and in 2009 its citizens were allowed to travel without visas to the Schengen zone.

Since 2008, though, Macedonia's EU (and NATO) accession has ground to a halt. The reason is, of course, the unresolved dispute about the country's name. Greece, even in its current enfeebled state, has been able to stop Macedonia's EU accession. The result has not been a Macedonian government doing anything it can to reassure Brussels of its good intentions, but, rather, the opposite.

Greece accuses Macedonia of trying to steal its Hellenic identity, so, in lieu of a gigantic bronze V-sign, the Macedonians are building a massive plinth in the centre of Skopje that they will soon crown with a statue of Alexander the Great.

Bosnia is in crisis, again. But, as Bosnia is almost always said to be in crisis, few bother to report this. On 7 March, the foreign ministers of Slovenia and Bulgaria went to Sarajevo to warn the Bosnians that their future was in jeopardy. Samuel Žbogar, the Slovene, reading from the EU-to-Bosnian phrasebook, said: "Status quo means moving backward, while the region is going forward."

Bosnians have heard this a million times before, but at least the first half of the phrase is right. As, since December, they no longer need visas to travel to the Schengen zone, Bosnians really are back to their old business of not doing what is asked of them by the EU.

Meanwhile, the endless debate about closing the Office of the High Representative, who has powers under the 1995 Dayton peace agreement and whose head is also the EU Special Representative, has entered another year.

As for Kosovo, the EU is taking the lead in overseeing the talks between Serbia and Kosovo and, in theory, those talks could make a real difference to people's lives.

But, in general terms, Serbia is doing this because it wants to advance its EU agenda and wants to appear, in this case, to be a co-operative partner. In the medium term, though, it is relatively happy with the way things are. Serbia keeps its claim to Kosovo, which declared itself independent in 2008, while the EU and others pay for it.

In the meantime, Kosovo's friends can squirm with embarrassment at the allegations levelled at Hashim Thaçi, the prime minister, by Dick Marty, who, in a report for the Council of Europe, called him a mafia boss and said he was linked to people who, again allegedly, murdered Serbs for their organs after the Kosovo war.

In Albania, the latest episode of the political drama pitting Edi Rama, the Socialist leader, against Prime Minister Sali Berisha is now unfolding.

There has been no normal politics in Albania since June 2009, when Rama accused Berisha of stealing the general election. In January, four demonstrators died outside Berisha's office, shot by the Republican Guard. Berisha accuses the Socialists of trying to mount a coup d'état using guns disguised as umbrellas.

Miroslav Lajcák, the managing director for the Balkans for the European External Action Service, has been to Tirana twice to try to broker a deal, but says that Albania's entire EU application process is in deep trouble.

Meanwhile, in Croatia, demonstrations begun by war veterans have spread to other groups, and the European Commission's sharp criticisms of Croatia's accession bid, in a report released on 2 March, will do little to endear the EU to a deeply Eurosceptic population.

In Serbia, which has now begun the countdown to elections, the prospect of membership seems so far off that it is hard to mobilise bureaucrats and officials to do what they are supposed to do.

That leaves just Montenegro, quietly ploughing its own furrow and actually getting on with things.

Milica Delevic, who runs Serbia's EU integration process, sums it up for the Balkans: "We not yet boring countries, but neither are we integrated into the EU."

But neither are they straining in the right direction – and in that case, as the cliché rightly says, they are going backwards.

In the Balkans, the EU cannot be a "retired power", as Ivan Krastev, the Bulgarian commentator, describes it with some justice. Because that second cliché – that if the EU fails in its backyard, how can it pull its weight elsewhere? – now seems to have a twist in the Balkans: if the EU cannot convince the world that it is a serious player, it certainly will not convince its Balkan backyard.

Tim Judah is the Balkans correspondent of The Economist.

http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/imported/the-balkans-slip-slide-away/70498.aspx

Serbian deputy PM mulls 'Hong Kong model' for Kosovo

Serbian deputy PM mulls 'Hong Kong model' for Kosovo [fr]

Published: 10 March 2011

Serbia hopes to be ready to join the European Union by the end of 2015, but first a "creative" solution will have to be found for its former province Kosovo, Serbian Deputy Prime Minister Bozidar Djelic told EurActiv Germany in an exclusive interview. He cited the "Hong Kong model" as one way of resolving the issue.

As Serbia's progress towards EU accession depends on its ability to solve its problems with its neighbours, Djelic said he would seek a "creative" compromise to an ongoing dispute on the independence of Kosovo.

When questioned about the meaning of "creativity"" in the context of finding a solution, he mentioned the 1972 model of the two Germanys and the "Hong Kong model".

The "two Germanys" system allowed West Germany not to recognise the communist East while at the same time maintaining relations with the German Democratic Republic and even establishing a ministry in charge of inter-German relations. 

After the 1997 handover to China of Hong Kong, a former British colony, it became a special administrative region of its new master. This means that the territory of Hong Kong is ruled according to the principle of 'one country, two systems'.

Such a compromise would guarantee Kosovo economic and political autonomy without endangering Serbia's territorial integrity, Djelic claimed.

"You cannot have lasting peace if you support one nationalism versus another. It is much better to support an unsatisfactory but workable European type of compromise," he said.

Serbia is ready to enter into a dialogue with Kosovo to discuss everyday issues, Djelic added, ranging from licence plates to customs stamps.

The first direct talks between Serbia and Kosovo, which declared independence unilaterally in 2008, began on 8 March in Brussels, under the oversight of EU High Representative Catherine Ashton.

However, Djelic did not want to talk about recognising Kosovo's independence. Serbia should not be forced to choose between "Europe or Kosovo," he insisted.

http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargement/serbian-deputy-pm-mulls-hong-kong-model-kosovo-news-502936

Libya: Media Manipulation

Libya: Media Manipulation

09.03.2011 | 11:32

As the journalists continue to follow the events in Libya, so does the public. Our new interactive format, which allows our readers to comment on the articles, has seen Pravda.Ru over the past few weeks receive numerous interesting comments from those who have been interested in this situation, which we are happy to synthesize below.

Let one thing be perfectly clear: those who manufactured those Libyan flags from the time of King Idris, those who are arming, aiding and abetting the "rebels" (terrorists according to the western media referring to the same types of actions in other countries) are responsible for what is going on. Suppose the western media is misleading us?

"He's gotta go," says David Cameron, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom about Muammar Al-Qathafi. The thing is, who has done more for his people? From President Obama, surprisingly, the same call. Yet the Libyan is not a protagonist who is dying for his own war to become a hero, because his disastrous policies at home are making him unpopular.

Unlike David Cameron, Muammar Al-Qathafi has invested in his people; he has not slashed education funding, he has increased literacy rates from 10 to around 85%; maybe those who support the flags from the pre-Qathafi era would like to have a reminder of the statistics from those times, because for sure those who fabricated these flags and transported them across the Tunisian and Egyptian borders will send Libya and the Libyans back into the dark ages from which Muammar Al-Qathafi freed them.

Let another thing be perfectly clear: the western media is misleading us and is trying to hide the interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign member of the UNO. Let us see some of the many comments from - and a presentation of several points raised by - our readers...

1. Why did the Libyan "revolution" not start in the capital, Tripoli, but rather in the separatist region of Cyrenaica?

2. Is it important that Cyrenaica is the oil-rich region?

3. How come the terrorists in Libya are referred to as "rebels" yet in other countries in the region they are "terrorists"?

4. How come the authorities of any sovereign nation have the right to impose law and order after armed insurrection, but Muammar Al-Qathafi apparently does not (according to Western media)? What does any civilised nation do when rebels burn buildings, kill women and children (oh didn't the western media publicise this?) and slaughter and torture unarmed civilians? In most countries the authorities have the right to react.

In the case of Libya, it is facing an armed insurrection fuelled by interfering foreign powers, marauding gangs of terrorists aiming to settle tribal scores, all for the right price.

5. How is it possible that the poorly equipped "rebels" "now have access to more sophisticated equipment" (SKY News). Where did it come from?

6. How to explain the fact that Dutch and British special forces have been detained operating inside Libya?

7. Why does SKY News concentrate on the same screaming child in a Libyan hospital, every single day, a child who seems to be screaming because he is more afraid of a syringe than due to any injury? Is it correct to manipulate public opinion using images of children?

8. Why does the same news channel show a man with a flesh wound from "heavy weaponry" while the bullet is visible on the surface of his skin? Why is Dominic Waghorn reporting the "truth" when last Summer he came to Portugal to hide it?

9. Why did the western media report that civilians had been bombed, and then Saif Al-Islam Qathafi entered a Sky News vehicle, saying for them to take him where they wanted, and the SKY crew was unable to find the areas they had said his "regime" forces had bombed?

10. Why did the BBC lie about an air strike that never existed?

11. Why did the BBC admit that the Libyan Air Force had been purposefully not hitting human targets? Then say Muammar Al-Qathafi is a "dictator" "slaughtering his own people"?

12. Why has the western media been saying that Muammar Al-Qathafi has been throwing the full force of his military options against "unarmed civilians" when it is obvious the civilians are heavily armed and he has not yet even started to use all the weaponry at his disposal?

13. Allaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahu Akhbar!!   Allaaaaaaaaaahu Akhbar! God is great! Where have we heard this before? And now from the er...rebels.

14. Why is the unrest always worse after Friday prayer service? Are we seeing another CIA-Mujaheddin type alliance? The type that saw the launch of the Taleban in Afghanistan?

15. Why is it that whenever there is a western camera present, someone unfolds one of those idiotic flags from the time when the people of Libya were illiterate and oppressed?

16. How come Muammar Al-Qathafi turns up wherever and whenever he wants in Tripoli?

17. Has Muammar Al-Qathafi disrespected the UNO by using lies to attack sovereign nations outside the auspices of the UN? No.

18. Libya is a "carbon copy" of brutal, bloody aggression of NATO on Yugoslavia and Serbia. Looking at those people running away from Libya to Tunisia in their thousands and western media again doing same thing, telling us that they are running away from "Gadhafi's regime" not from a threat of NATO intervention and their bombs but just like what happened with the Albanians from Kosovo, the aggressor is intervening on "humanitarian grounds".

19. Gadhafi has to be put on trial for Genocide and violation of human rights but GW Bush, Tony Blair and Greschner should receive the "Nobel peace prize",

20. When the West waged its genocidal 1st war for the conquest of Kuwait and Iraq, the hundreds of thousands of third country nationals that fled from Iraq did so not because of having had to suffer any hardship due to Iraqi rule, but rather because of starvation and acholera epidemic resulting from an inhuman total blockade imposed by NATO (food items and chemicals--employed---in--water--treatment--plants were especially prohibited).

21. The WESTERN MAINSTREAM media has completely FORGOTTEN about the human right to life of all the Libyan civilians unopposed to Gaddafi who are being massacred or maimed by the foreign insurgents just to terrorise the remaining populace and make a point. Just as this very same media cared not a fig about the thousands of apolitical innocent civilians that were brutally executed (by stoning, electrocuting etc.) by the Bush & Hillarity-backed Taliban within days of having overran almost three-fourths of Afghanistan with NATO weaponry in the late 1990's.

22. Few other countries live in such a social comfort, as Libyans do. They have free health care system and treatment. Their hospitals are provided with the best medical equipment in the world. The education in Libya is free of charge. Talented youth have an opportunity to study abroad at the expense of Libya. After getting married, a couple can get more than 60 thousands dinar (50 thousand dollars) of financial help. State credits are non-interest-bearing, and often the principal is written off as well. Automobile's prices are considerably lower, than in Europe and affordable for everyone. Petrol costs 18 cent, and bread 4 cent. Libyans have been provided a very good environment as regards social and job-security, and their general educational level (both males and females can be seen pursuing all branches of university education) is better than that in so-called very affluent Arab countries like Saudi Arabia.

23. When a DUTCH helicopter carrying several mercenary Dutch soldiers including a jingoistic woman, (allegedly on a sabotage-cum-espionage mission to undermine Libyan national defence right in the hometown of the leader Col. Gaddafi ) were captured by Libyan defenders, the DUTCH government finally acknowledged that its warship:- the TROMP, has indeed been lurking in the high sea off SIRTE and the captured helicopter had lifted-off from there.

24.  When will the world understand the US modus operandi. Befriend, Praise, Infiltrate, Subvert, Destroy. It has become cliché and yet people still fall for it. It is true there is an upper limit to intelligence but stupidity knows no bounds. Let it be a warning to all those who believe that the US/Israel and other Zionist minions can be trusted allies. The process, preparing the world for the invasion of Libya, is so reminiscent of the one prior to the Iraq war, that only those severely challenged can fail to see it.

25. Surely the Libyan armed forces have shown restraint, more than aggression. Let's face it, they could raze the cities and towns if they wanted. They have been going in, causing limited damage to the terrorists and have pulled back out again limiting the human and material damage.

26. But when price increases in major Libyan cities sparked a wave of discontent, imperialism seized the opportunity. They concluded that it was time to get rid of Gaddafi, an always uncomfortable leader.

The riots in Tunisia and Egypt, protests in Bahrain and Yemen have created very favorable conditions to instigate demonstrations in Libya. It was no accident that Benghazi emerged as the hub of the rebellion. Major transnational oil companies operate in Cyrenaica, the ends of pipelines and gas pipelines are located there.

The National Front for the Salvation of Libya, an organization financed by the CIA, was activated. It is instructive that it was the city to see the rapid emergence in the streets of the old monarchy flag and portraits of the late King Idris, the tribal chief Senussi crowned by England after the expulsion of the Italians. A "prince" Senussi suddenly appeared to give interviews.

27. In relationship to the status of women in Libya, "The delegation indicated that women were highly regarded in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, and their rights were guaranteed by all laws and legislation. Discriminatory laws had been revoked." (Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, Human Rights Council, Jan. 4, 2011, p. 4)

Many thanks to our readers for making Pravda.Ru the interactive and interesting alternative must-read on the Net!

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

Pravda.Ru

 

 

George Kenney

Posted: March 7, 2011 05:44 PM

The U.S. Should Not Make War on Libya

In the early phases of the Bosnian civil war I thought — wrongly, in retrospect — that the west had a narrow window of opportunity to throw in our lot with a genuinely multi-ethnic Bosnian government, to bring the war to a swift and just resolution. One of my mistakes was in not seeing that the Sarajevo government contrived to maintain the veneer of multi-ethnicity but was, in fact, a Muslim enterprise whose penchant for atrocities was only slightly inferior to that of the official international villains, the Serbs. Nor did the Muslims have a much lower atrocity count than the historically blood-thirsty Croats. (It took me a couple trips wandering around the battlefield to become convinced.) The best outcome had always been a negotiated settlement but Washington waited almost five years before accepting that reality. By the end, in 1995, when all three sides were exhausted — front line fighters had largely stopped shooting — a few minor bombing campaigns got undeserved credit for clinching the Dayton deal but the bombing's harmful, longer term fallout became obscured.

In any case, in November 1992 I had co-authored an op-ed with former U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff General Michael J. Dugan in the New York Times, laying out how a serious bombing campaign might work. This does not make me an expert but I did have an opportunity, at Mike's behest, to consult with a then currently serving Colonel who had planned the air war for Operation Desert Storm. Although the U.S. never undertook anything like our proposed "Operation Balkan Storm," I think it's fair to say that things would not have worked as expected.

The same could be said for a no fly zone in Libya.

The pro-intervention crowd makes the argument that after boxing in Gaddafi through economic sanctions, the threat of war crimes trials, etc., we're therefore responsible for the consequences of his having nothing left to lose from unleashing his full wrath against the Libyan people. It's the familiar common law principle of the responsibility of a good Samaritan but, as applied to Libya, it's sophistry, because the consequences are of a different order. To help save the Libyan people, or not, vastly oversimplifies the problem.

Several parts of the interventionist argument contain unexamined assumptions. One, mentioned repeatedly by Bob Gates, is that a no fly zone requires a small war to be put into effect. Before U.S. aircraft could safely enforce a no fly zone Libyan anti-aircraft assets must be wiped out. It's doubtful we know already where they all are so we'd have to find them, probably most of them, by running enough air raids to provoke government forces to turn on their radars, at which point those sites can be neutralized. On the other hand, it's also likely that Col. Gaddafi would salt mobile units into populated areas, near mosques, hospitals, schools, etc. The prospect both of a few U.S. planes being blown out of the Libyan sky and horrific "collateral damage" on the ground should give pause.

Cognizant of those dangers, a few interventionists are arguing, instead, for a limited no fly zone over the eastern, rebel controlled areas. This, they say, would be considerably less demanding and would give the rebels time to arm and train themselves. It would be as straightforward and as casualty free for us, they say, as the limited no fly zones over northern and southern Iraq (from the end of the first Gulf War through the beginning of the second).

But the circumstances are not the same. After being severely beaten in the first Gulf War Saddam Hussein was not about to precipitate another round of full scale warfare. Though he did try to shoot down coalition aircraft enforcing the zones he didn't try very hard. More importantly, the Iraqi no fly zones were formally static, having been intended to protect certain Kurdish and Marsh Arab populations from attack. In contrast, in Libya, logically, a limited no fly zone would have to have a somewhat elastic character because the rebels aren't so much fleeing from Col. Gaddafi as they are trying to seize power from him. After the establishment of a limited no fly zone, for example, if the rebels were to close on Tripoli, would the interventionists then tell them that they were henceforth on their own? No — most likely the no fly zone would follow the front.

All this prompts the question of who it is, exactly, getting arms and training under our no fly zone protection. Are they "the good guys?" Suppose not all of them are so good and that, just as in most civil wars, some of them commit horrible atrocities. At what point does our protection confer indirect responsibility?

Another consideration, one that interventionists generally don't address, is how a small war against Libya might motivate pro-government forces to fight back. To the extent that loyalists are wavering, calculating their options, it's reasonable to suppose that an outside threat could bring many firmly back into the fold. The same is true for a much larger number of "undecided" Libyans who must choose between the government or the rebels.

Moreover, outsiders with a militant anti-U.S. agenda would likely converge on Libya. For the most part they would be two-bit mercenaries but a few might have genuine talent. Prolonged combat could well create, in effect, a new graduate program for anti-American terrorism.

It's worth reminding ourselves that a small war is not necessarily going to be a quick war and that we can't count on Col. Gaddafi leaving Libya of his own volition. The fact is, even without intervention nobody knows how long the turmoil in Libya may last. It could be over tomorrow, or it could last a month, or two, or even as long as a few years.

While interventionists talk a good game about the sanitary, long-distance nature of a no fly zone, once started, a small war would create enormous political pressures to secure Libya's oil fields — the ninth largest reserves in the world — or even just the field that accounts for the most production (the Sirte basin, midway between government controlled Tripoli and rebel held Benghazi). Even assuming that the U.S. military could undertake such an effort it's a sure bet that U.S. political officers would not know how to handle Libyan tribal politics. Thus an introduction of U.S. ground forces could only add to the likelihood of a longer war.

With or without ground forces a small U.S. war against Libya could further agitate the rest of the Maghreb, the larger middle east, and even more distant areas, like Pakistan. Even under the best circumstances such agitation would be dangerous but, given the spirit of insurrection currently sweeping the Muslim world, this is perhaps the worst possible time to again offer ourselves as a potential target. Prudence suggests we not commit to unnecessary provocations until things have quieted down.

Interventionists, however, speculate that the opposite may be true: if a tyrannical regime with blood on its hands is left standing during this wave of reform then other repressive regimes may resort to force against "peaceful demonstrators" and those in opposition will be less likely to take risks. By not acting in Libya, they say, the impetus to democratization may wane. It's an interesting argument but, again, within it are important unexamined assumptions, most notably that the opposition groups who are protesting are peaceful. In Libya, manifestly they are not. So the other side of the coin is the question whether the U.S. wants to encourage violent insurrections against undemocratic regimes, either as a general policy or on a case by case basis. Perhaps, or perhaps not, but this is clearly a different — a more strategic — question than just whether we want to "help" Libya.

Then there's the issue of by what authority we would go to war. In the first two Gulf wars the U.S. managed to secure a fig leaf of legality. Here, that's not as easily done. Both Russia and China have made it abundantly clear that they disapprove of military action against Libya so it's unrealistic to expect any use of force resolution from the UN Security Council. The U.S. might be able to put together another 'coalition of the willing' within NATO but not even all NATO members think that the use of force is a good idea. If asked, the UK and France would probably participate in a U.S.-led effort, for example, but Germany would not. Once again the U.S. would strain the limits of international law and sow seeds of mistrust. In the longer run, in the same way that the Russians used the precedents of Bosnia and Kosovo in justifying their 2008 seizure of South Ossetia, other states might justify an ad hoc decision to go to war based upon what we do in Libya. If our goal is to inhibit wars of aggression — and it is — we have little choice but to play by the rules even if sometimes we don't like them.

And what about Congress? Nobody seems to be asking whether Congress might have a role in deciding whether to go to war with Libya but it's a legitimate question. If one goes by the Constitution it does; if one prefers to ignore the Constitution that's OK too, but the repeated precedent tends to accumulate a potentially dangerous power in the presidency. In the future, it would be neither reasonable nor expedient to depend upon all presidents to use that power judiciously.

To be honest, there is also a question of sincerity. I've no doubt that many of those who want a U.S. military intervention in Libya are completely sincere and are trying to understand the situation from the purest humanitarian perspective. But when one sees most of the same gang that argued for both Gulf Wars in full-throated synchronization over the virtues of going to war with Libya, one must consider the probability that other (murky) interests are involved.

The danger is that a large number of senior Obama administration officials believe, wrongly, that a little bit of bombing works. Bosnia, they say, proved it. But learning the wrong lessons from Bosnia could lead to a tragic mistake.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-kenney/the-us-should-not-make-wa_b_832603.html