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

Is NATO in Libya?

06.03.2011

 

After NATO's acts of terrorism in recent years, after the blatant disregard for human rights and human life when depleted uranium rendered swathes of Yugoslavia uninhabitable and destroyed the futures of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, would it surprise anyone to learn that Libya is a NATO campaign?

What NATO is capable of, we have already seen in Yugoslavia, what the West is capable of, we saw in Georgia. We have seen the blatant barefaced lies, we have seen indiscriminate acts of murder, war crimes and crimes against humanity, all glossed over by the controlled media. So would it surprise anyone that NATO is indeed operating in Libya?

The defeated look of the nine-year-old Iraqi boy who had just been told his entire family had been literally obliterated by a NATO bomb was as unforgettable as the brave smile sported by the six-year-old Iraqi "terrorist" whose limbs and face had been blasted off by e heroic NATO pilot. The victims of NATO, as it perpetrated unspeakable acts of terrorism against unarmed civilians.

Interestingly, the "rebels" in Yemen are not "revolutionaries", but "terrorists": The State Department has raised the security threat level for the country to "extremely high due to terrorist activities and civil unrest". Interesting it is that President Ali Abdullah Saleh, the friend of Washington, has promised to defend his Government against the rebels "with every drop of blood" yet nobody speaks out against him. Where are the referrals to the international penal court? Where are the calls for him to "go now"?

Interesting it is, that in Libya things are so wholly and totally different. Interesting it was that the eastern and western borders were secured (Tunisia and Egypt) over which equipment and men poured, interesting it is that already two teams of NATO special forces have been captured inside Libya (Dutch Navy Force and British SAS), interesting was SKY News' interview with a "front-line rebel" speaking in a broad Canadian accent.

Interesting it is that the professionalism of the western media which supports NATO's terrorist campaigns spread lies, half-truths and mistruths against Muammar Al-Qathafi and his government and expect their viewers and readers to swallow this bilge hook, line and sinker. How many of them referred to the fact that Libya has the highest life expectancy of the African Continent? How many of them have bothered to research and inform their viewers and readers that Muammar Al-Qathafy's "regime" started to distribute the oil wealth directly to the people to combat corruption, giving Libya's people the highest Purchasing Power Parity in Africa?

How many stated that the under-nourished are 5 per cent, lower than many European Union States, how many informed us that to combat rising food prices, the Libyan government abolished all taxes on food, how many of them said that the infant mortality rate in Libya is the lowest in all of Africa?

Interesting it is that amid their anti-Qathafi diatribes, they forgot to tell us that Libya's Human Development Index is the highest of any of Africa's 54 States (counting both Sudans and the Western Sahara, illegally annexed by Morocco), interesting it is that the poverty rate in Libya ranks below that of the Netherlands, and that they declined to explain what Jamahiriya (the Libyan system of Government) means, namely "a state of the masses", governed by the populace through local councils.

Interesting it is that the "revolutionaries", aka "terrorists" are allowed by NATO to mount an armed insurrection yet the same countries which deployed depleted uranium on the children of Iraq and Yugoslavia call for Muammar Al-Qathafi not to fight back.

What is he supposed to do? Give his oil to the West on their terms?

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

Pravda.Ru

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/06-03-2011/117103-nato_libya-0/

Who is Muammar Gaddafi?

01.03.2011

 

by Antonio Cesar Oliveira

How can you call someone a dictator leader who overthrew a corrupt monarchy, modernized the country, won the highest HDI in Africa, and applied a direct democracy system of government?

Gaddafi has always supported revolutionary movements around the world. When the media - in the service of the U.S. - praised the apartheid regime South Africa, young Gaddafi in Libya trained and sent them back with the best weapons to win freedom in South Africa.

Suddenly the press began a daily attack on the leader Muammar Gaddafi, to distill hatred, spreading lies, forging videos for what? What does it prove? The crimes of the Libyan government? Apparently this journalistic line was caused by popular uprisings in Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen and Egypt.

In fact, it is more a question of one more terrorist strategy of the government of the United States of America to recover influence in the Arab world. In Egypt, the government fell in U.S. confidence. Mubarak was merely an agent of U.S. and Israel interests in the region. With the fall of Mubarak, Iranian ships began to circulate in the vicinity of Israel, causing unease and anger in the diplomatic environments subservient to imperialism and Zionism.

After losing Egypt, the U.S. government tries to divide and weaken Libya, and this effort receives support from the supporters of Bin Laden, and thousands of Egyptian refugees that over the years have taken refuge in eastern Libya, fleeing the repression in Egypt. After the Egyptians came Algerians, Tunisians and Somalis, followers of Al Qaeda. They enjoyed the hospitality of the Libyans and then the next thing they stabbed them in the back, triggering a revolt that has left tens of victims, through sabotage, terrorism and destruction of public property.

But who is this Qaddafi that the media suddenly started to attack in all forms, and even in a most cowardly form? Gaddafi led a revolution to overthrow King Idris, a puppet of Italian and American interests in the region. At the time, the largest U.S. military base abroad was in Libya, Qaddafi and his supporters surrounded the base and gave 24 hours for all invading foreigners to leave the country.

In power, Gaddafi did not like the Arab monarchs, did not build palaces with gold, not buy luxury yachts or collections of imported cars. He devoted himself to rebuilding the country, ensuring better living conditions for the people. Today Qaddafi is not president or prime minister of Libya, but the media wants him to resign a post which does not exist.

The lies of the media cannot hide the fact that Gaddafi has supported the struggles of peoples for liberation in Nicaragua, Cuba, Angola, Mozambique, South Africa and many other countries, specifically concretely helping the people who fought for liberation. In practice, Gaddafi has always been a benefactor of mankind, but for the mercenary media, a benefactor is one who creates wars in search of profits for the arms industry or to dominate the world, as were the wars created by the U.S. in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, El Salvador, Nicaragua and many other countries.

This utterly ridiculous gossip of wealth and strange customs have always been exploited by the media, it was with Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, Fidel Castro, Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez and etc. It is enough to be a serious ruler that does not seriously kneel down and cower in fear before the United States and is not intimidated to be demonised and disparaged by the mercenary media.

Another fact that the media cannot falsify is the HDI (Human Development Index) measured by UN officials. These data indicate, for example, that Libya had in 1970, a situation a little worse than Brazil (HDI of 0.541, against 0.551 of Brazil.) The Libyan index surpassed the Brazilian years later, and in 2008 was well ahead: 0.810 (ranked 43rd), compared to 0.764 (ranking 59th). All three sub-indices that comprise the HDI is higher in the African country: income, longevity and education.

In the HDI recast the difference remains. Libya is ranked the 53rd (0.755) and Brazil 73rd (.699). Libya is the country with the highest HDI in Africa. Therefore, the best distribution of income, and health and public education are free. And almost 10% of Libyan students receive scholarships to study in foreign countries.

So what kind of dictatorship is this? A dictatorship would never allow this kind of policy for the benefit of the people.

Gadhafi wrote the Green Book, the Third Universal Theory, which deals with controversial and real issues. He complains, for example, about the falsification of democracy through parliamentary assemblies. In most countries that consider themselves democratic, including the United States of America, political parties are organized criminal gangs to loot the people's money in legislative assemblies, City Councils, House of Representatives, etc.

This observation - and a book in publication - certainly irritate and anger them? The defenders of parliamentary democracy? The Green Book, written by Gaddafi, says that workers should be involved and self-employed, and that the land must be of those who work it and those who live in the house. And power shall be exercised by the people directly, without intermediaries, without politicians, through popular congresses and committees, where the whole population decides the fundamental issues of the district, city and country. These words, which everyone knows are true, revolt and irritate those few who benefit from the falsification of democracy, especially the capitalist regimes.

But the press will keep on on forging the news, boiling hatred by spreading lies, because it is following orders from the U.S. government, very interested in the large oil reserves of Libya.

Major newspapers and television channels in the world use news agencies from the United States, all biased, misleading and deceptive. The lies that the news agencies sell buy public opinion, and most people? By naivete or misinformation they behave like puppets, repeating whatever the U.S. government determines and imposes.

This is not the first nor will it be the last, the Libyan Arab people face powerful foreign powers. Again the Libyan people will win, because they have the leadership of Muammar Qaddafi, an effective, strong and honorable guide.

*In a rare interview with Western journalists in January 1986, only months before the U.S. terrorist bombing of Libya, the Leader of the Revolution spoke frankly about his life and how he had been misunderstood by the West. Meeting the journalists in his tent he told of how he admired former US Presidents George Washington and Abraham Lincoln and of other world leaders he admires like "Egypt's late Gamal Abdul Nasser, India's Mahatma Gandhi, Sun Yat-Sen of China and Italy's Garibaldi and Mazzini." (Really, I'm a Nice Guy, Kate Dourian, Tripoli, Libya.)

He spoke of his favourite book The Outsider by British author Colin Wilson and others he likes such as Uncle Tom's Cabin and Roots. Throughout this interview the profound thinking and innate humanity of Muammar Qadhafi shone through.

He also stated in another interview: "I see the press as being the messengers between me and the world to tell them the truth."

*Mathaba.net

　

Translated from the Portuguese and appended by:

Lisa Karpova

Pravda. http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/crimes/01-03-2011/117055-Who_is_Muammar_Gaddafi-0/ Ru

 

Denying genocide should not be called freedom of speech - ltr. Edmonton Journal

 

 

letters@edmontonjournal.com

 

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Denying+genocide+should+called+freedom+speech/4357609/story.html

Denying genocide should not be called freedom of speech

 

 

By Dr. Srdja Pavlovic, Edmonton Journal February 28, 2011

 

Does denying genocide count as free speech? Dr. Srdja Trifkovic is an associate of the Rockford Institute and the visiting professor of international relations at the University of Banja Luka in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Dr. Trifkovic was recently invited to speak about the state of affairs in the Balkans at the University of British Columbia. The local Serbian community had also invited him to visit Edmonton, following his UBC lecture.

He was scheduled to address his supporters this Saturday (Feb. 26) at the University of Alberta and speak about the causes and consequences of Serbia's decline, and the alleged return of the neo-Ottomans to the political stage in the region, among other things.

All these plans were put on hold because Dr. Trifkovic was denied entry into Canada due to his alleged links with the wartime leaders of the Bosnian Serbs. The organizers of his lecture tour complained bitterly and argued that the decision taken by Immigration Canada had infringed upon the right of the freedom of speech.

I believe the decision of Immigration Canada to deny Dr. Trifkovic entry into this country has merits. I do not think such decisions could be disputed on the basis of the freedom of speech and the necessity to have a dialogue on a given topic.

Both freedom of speech and the need to have a dialogue could not be taken as absolute categories. Denying genocide committed in Srebrenica in 1995 in a manner Dr. Trifkovic does should not be presented and rationalized as practising freedom of speech.

The judgment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague had clearly categorized Srebrenica as the crime of genocide. Such a decision was supported by the overwhelming evidence. One should, of course, have the right to one's own opinion but not the right to one's own facts.

I have always been in favour of a dialogue and a critical evaluation of evidence. The problem, however, is that Dr. Trifkovic and his supporters do not want to have a dialogue. As any nationalist would do, they see their version of the past as true and valid, and demand that others believe it, too.

While calling for a dialogue they shout at their critics, rather than talk to them and then have the audacity to call such shouting the expression of the freedom of speech.

Dr. Srdja Pavlovic, University of Alberta

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

Read more: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Denying+genocide+should+called+freedom+speech/4357609/story.html#ixzz1FHr6eGOV

Letter in Defense of Professor Sdrja Trifkovic by Stella L. Jatras

 

The Globe and Mail

 

Letter to the editor(s)

 

28 February 2011

 

It is said that truth is the first victim of war - and there could be no better example than the 1990's war in the Balkans.  

 

As an American, I have always admired Canada's value of freedom of speech, especially in its universities.  That appears not to be the case today at the University of British Columbia where, apparently based on one protest to the president of the university from the Institute for the Research of Genocide Canada, renown Balkan expert Professor Srdja Trifkovic was denied entry into Canada. 
.  

For a university to allow only one side of an issue to be heard is a gross disservice to its students.  Surely, Canada does not want to be compared to Hitler's Germany, or to Stalin's Sovietn Union, for that is how they controlled the minds of their students.  Let the students hear the evidence and then let them judge for themselves, or perhaps President Toope does not believe that his students are mature enough to hear the other side of the story.

 

In 1999, Serbian forces were accused of killing 700 Kosovo Albanians, grinding up their bodies and throwing them down the Trepca mine shaft after they had been incinerated.  Not so.  The outrageous story was proven to be a hoax by New York Times journalist Daniel Pearl.  Hatred against the Serbs by the pro-Bosnian media was further fanned by reports of Serbs having killed 250,000 Bosnians. However, a 2002 BBC report puts the number killed in Bosnia, on all sides, at 40,000

 

If we are to talk about Srebrenica, we should then talk about the fact that not only Srebrenica, but the Sarajevo, Tuzla, Bihac and Gorazde "safe areas," that were supposed to be demilitarized, were used for training, recuperating and refurbishing troops not only for Bosnian government forces but also for mujahidin fighters from the entire Islamic world to fight the Christian Serbs.  Although 7,000 is a large number alleged to have been killed by Serbian forces, a number challenged by Defense & Foreign Affairs analyst, Gregory Copley, along with a former UN official, intelligence experts and journalists, who released a statement that the alleged casualty number of 7,000 victims as "vastly inflated and unsupported by evidence."  While the alleged Srebrenica massacre in July 1995 received massive media coverage, the fact that 14,000 Serbian men, women and children were killed in August 1995 by Croatian forces during Operation Storm, as well as 250,000 who were ethnically cleansed from their ancestral lands in the Krajina region of Croatia, received little coverage in the Western media.  Commanding Operation Storm, with massive US support, was Brig Gen. Agim Ceku, an ethnic Kosovo Albanian.  Operation Storm became the largest land offensive in Europe since World War II and resulted in the murder and inhumane treatment of thousands of ethnic Serbs. 

 

The decision to ban Professor Srdja Trifkovic from Canada can only go down as a black mark in Canadian history.  Let those who disagree with Professor Trifkovic engage him in a battle of facts and intellect, not hide behind boycotts and name calling. Let the University of British Columbia be an institute of learning, not a

close-minded propaganda mill.

 

Stella L. Jatras

USA

 

Trifkovic fights for free speech in Canada

 

http://serbianna.com/analysis/archives/847

 

Interview: Trifkovic fights for free speech in Canada

Feb 28, 2011

Dr. Srdja Trifkovic, a scholar, author, and foreign affairs editor at Chronicles Magazine, was invited to speak at the University of British Columbia on February 24. His visit was vocally opposed by various Bosnian-Muslim lobbying groups, including one that calls itself the Institute for Research of Genocide of Canada.
Dr. Trifkovic was detained on arrival at Vancouver and some hours later sent back to the U.S. on the basis of apparently bogus accusations. The only people who have reason to "ban" him are those who seek, through lies, deceit and intimidation, to make our Canadian society less free and less open.  CKCU 93.1 FM Monday's Encounter has contacted Dr. Trifkovic upon his return to Chicago in order to find out the reason behind his deportation from Canada.

What were their stated reasons for not allowing you to enter Canada?

The border agency personnel decided that I was, as they put it, a "proscribed senior official" of a government guilty of terrorism, genocide, or some major human rights violations. From the silly pro-forma interview to which I was subjected, I gather that they have reason to believe that I had occupied a senior government position in the Bosnian Serb Republic (i.e. the Republika Srpska) at the time of the civil war there. In view of what had preceded my trip, the controversy that various Bosnian Muslim front organizations had tried to create in connection with my UBS lecture, I have every reason to believe that this false information came from those quarters.

Were you ever a member of the Bosnian Serb government?

No. It would be really curious to find out what in their estimate my position was and what was the time span of my responsibility and who were the people under my command. The meaning of the term senior official is fairly loose, and to make such as specific allegation they would at least have to come up with some specific evidence, which they are unable to do. I have had a long-standing relationship with the authorities of the Republika Srpska . During the war, when I gave my many interviews on the subject of the trouble in the Balkans, I was invariably presented as a "foreign affairs analyst with close links to the Bosnian Serbs." The gap between having "close links" and occupying a position of institutionalized responsibility is indeed very wide.

Do you know who has signed the ban?

The decision itself is signed by the immediate immigration officer, which is neither here nor there. I have no doubt in my mind that the red flag attached to my name had been send by the field officers' political superiors some days in advance, as a consequence of the controversy  surrounding my UBC lecture. When I arrived at the immigration desk, it was immediately obvious that the woman handling my passport – without even thinking about it – wrote on the customs slip the note that required me to report to their "secondary control."

Were you surprised, as an American citizen, to be barred from entering Canada?

Frankly I am, American citizen or not. I demand no special treatment for being an American, but this is ridiculous. I have been to Canada about two-dozens times since the Bosnian war, including trips to deliver lectures at different universities, such as the University of Toronto, Carleton University in Ottawa, and the universities of Waterloo and Alberta. I also had the honor of appearing as an expert witness before the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons in Ottawa in February 2000. Later that summer I drove a thousand miles with my children for a vacation to a lake in Northern Ontario, which says something about my feelings for that country.
I have never violated any Canadian laws, to the best of my knowledge, and I have never been told that I may have done so. Of course I have never had any problems with border control. For them to discover now, almost two decades and over twenty visits later, that I am a threat to Canada's multicultural harmony is laughable. They allowed a threat called Srdja Trifkovic to roam around Canada unchecked, coast to coast, for all these years! The horror! But now they presumably hope it's over.
We pretty much know the true cause, of course. That the organs of the Canadian state would be reduced to the level of acting as water carriers and unthinking enforcers for an ethnic lobby seeking to curtail free speech and open debate in Canada is indeed tragic. I readily admit that this possibility had not crossed my mind.

You were held and interrogated for six hours at the Vancouver International Airport. How were you treated by the Canadian immigration officers?

I spent a total of six hours at the secondary control premises but I was not actually interrogated for all that time. The woman handling my case spent, maybe, less than one third of that time talking to me — and my distinct impression is that she was only going through the motions of conducting this interview. She was utterly out of her depth and obviously had not the quaintest idea of who was doing what to whom in the Balkans and what my case was all about. She even asked me at one point if the former President of Yugoslavia, Dr. Vojislav Kostunica, had been indicted for war crimes, and looked mildly incredulous at my assuring her that he remained free of any such taint. That gives you some indication of the depth of her ignorance. I think that it was only a pro forma interview because the decision to have me banned had been made at some higher political level prior to my coming. The interrogation was simply a choreographed farce to satisfy the form.

So, on whose request the Canadian authorities barred you from entering Canada?

I have every reason to believe that it was due to a massive campaign by the Islamist lobby in general and the Bosnian-Muslim lobby in particular. Let me single out the efforts of one of their front organizations that calls itself the Institute for Research of Genocide of Canada, which has accused me of being a "genocide denier" because I resolutely reject the Hague Tribunal's version of the events in Srebrenica in general and its designation as a "genocide" in particular. It is a different topic, of course, and not the one connected with the title of my scheduled lecture, which was The Balkans: uncertain prospects for an unstable region. Of course such single-issue ethnic lobbying organizations should not be allowed to impact the government policy. In this particular case they were. They were able to force a decision that concerns not just me personally, but also the principles of free speech and civilized discourse in Canada – the principles to which they themselves do not subscribe.
The same model of villification, inuendo and outright lies, once instituted, can be applied against anyone at any time. The fictitious nature of the reasons given for my exclusion indicates that the same technique is a blunt yet lethal weapon. It is ready for arbitrary use, Stasi-like, at any moment, at any point of entry. If an ethnically based lobby makes a fuss and the Canadian authorities obediently act upon their demands, it really bolds ill for the future of remains of free speech in Canada.
This is not the first time that something like this has happened. Remember the cases involving Ann Cutler, George Galloway MP from the UK, and others. This is turning in to a pattern. That pattern has to be unmasked for what it is. It is a form of creeping totalitarianism, which does no credit to Canada as a democratic society supposedly based upon the values that we all honour and subscribe to.

What opportunities legal or otherwise are you perusing in order for the ban to be lifted?

At this stage I will be focusing on having them schedule a speedy hearing at which I will try to have this decision overturned. After that I will considered my options. I have been slandered and the Canadian government has been a fellow conspirator and lead executor in this rather sordid operation. I would prefer not to comment on any further steps that I might take, however. We'll talk about that after the hearing to determine my status.

 

 

__._,_.___

Libya: Where international law died

Libya: Where international law died

27.02.2011 | 11:43

International law has taken three body blows in the last decade: Serbia, Iraq and now Libya, where foreign interference is patently obvious, where the entire anti-Gathafi campaign is orchestrated from abroad, manipulated by the media and controlled by elements who have been trying to assassinate the Libyan leader for decades.

For a start, not all Libyans are against Colonel Gadhafi, which is patently obvious in Tripoli and probably in other areas, where they dare not show their heads among marauding crowds of thugs, terrorists and vandals who have taken the streets, the darlings of an anti-Gadhafi international media which appears to support acts of terrorism and public disorder.

What is at stake here is not the alleged reaction by the authorities against what is to all intents and purposes an armed uprising, yet given the track record of the anti-Gadhafi forces, any reaction is hardly surprising, right or wrong. What is at stake here is respect for international law, which upholds the right of all countries to apply their Constitution in their own territory. This includes, as in the USA, the right to impose the death penalty.

Under normal circumstances, this would be applied after due legal process consisting of a charge, the right to defence, a trial, a judgement and the right to appeal. But how is this possible in a war scenario? When gangs of heavily armed protesters are ransacking Government property, committing arson, acts of terrorism and murdering people, what are the authorities supposed to do, stand back with their hands over their hearts and sing God Bless America?

And exactly who are these "rebels"? Are they not led by those forces trained by the US military in the United States of America, representatives of the armed faction of the National Front for the Salvation of Libya, flown in to Egypt and Tunisia to then infiltrate across the Libyan borders? Is this kind of subversion legal, or is it an act of state-sponsored terrorism?

This anti-Gathafi group, sponsored and trained in terrorist activities by the CIA and Israelis and financed in part by Saudi Arabia for decades, has tried it before, several times. For instance back in May 1984 when fifteen terrorists from this group attempted to murder the Colonel in his residence after slipping across the Sudanese border. This National Liberation Army has been gravitating around Libya's borders since the 1980s.

They have tried to foster rebellion in Libya time and time again. These covert operations are difficult to classify for purposes of accountability and jurisdiction, however this does not mean they are legal. An act of terrorism is an act of terrorism, yet in our world today the label changes according to who is propagating the message.

And right now the international mainstream (bought) media is orchestrating a campaign to remove Muammar Al-Gathafi from power. The demonology is clear to see: references to "Gaddafy", "dictator", "murderer", reference to "protesters". Does a "protester" sport a machine gun?

Whether or not Muammar Al-Gathafi remains as the leader of the Libyan people is a decision that belongs to the people of Libya, not a few thousand mercenaries recruited from abroad to serve the Great Plan which has existed in Washington/Tel Aviv for over a decade, namely the control of "Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran." These are not my words. They are the words of General Wesley Clark in an interview with DemocracyNow!, March 2, 2007*.

Does this put the Libyan "uprising" in context? No? Then how about the news that the US State Department is at this moment speaking to separatist opposition groups in Eastern Libya?

*http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5166

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

Pravda.Ru

http://www.moscowtopnews.com/

 

Trifkovic banned from Canada

About the Author

Dr. Srdja Trifkovic, an expert on foreign affairs, is the author of The Sword of the Prophet and Defeating Jihad. His latest book is The Krajina Chronicle: A History of the Serbs in Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia.

See All Posts by This Author

Banned From Canadistan

by Srdja Trifkovic

February 25th, 2011 • Related • Filed Under

[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].

 

On Thursday, March 24, I was denied entry to Canada. After six hours' detention and sporadic interrogation at Vancouver airport I was escorted to the next flight to Seattle. It turns out I am "inadmissible on grounds of violating human or international rights for being a proscribed senior official in the service of a government that, in the opinion of the minister, engages or has engaged in terrorism, systematic or gross human rights violations, or genocide, a war crime or a crime against humanity within the meaning of subsections 6 (3) to (5) of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act."

It appears that my contacts with the Bosnian Serb leaders in the early nineties make me "inadmissible" today. As it happens I was never one of their officials, "senior" or otherwise, but the story has been told often enough (most recently in one of my witness testimonies at The Hague War Crimes Tribunal). The immigration officer at Vancouver decided that what was good for The Hague was not good enough for Canada; but her decision evidently had been written somewhere else by someone else well before my arrival. (She was so out of her depth that she asked me if President Vojislav Koštunica had been indicted for war crimes.)

I've visited Canada some two dozen times since the Bosnian war ended; ironically, one of those visits, in February 2000, was to provide expert testimony before the Canadian House of Commons in Ottawa. Why should the Canadian authorities suddenly decide to keep me out of the country now, and for transparently spurious reasons? Well, because the Muslims told them so. The campaign started when a Bosnian-Muslim propaganda front, calling itself The Institute for Research of Genocide of Canada, demanded to have me "banned" from speaking at the University of British Columbia on February 24. The ensuing campaign soon escalated into demands to keep me out of Canada altogether. The authorities have now obliged.

As Ambassador James Bissett noted last week, what is outrageous is that, over the years, this "Institute" has indulged in the denial of a real genocide in the former Yugoslavia. It has also attempted to blacken the reputation of one of Canada's most highly respected soldiers by posting (last December 26) "The Shocking Account by Raped Bosniak Women and Criminal Undertakings of Lt. General (Ret.) Lewis Mackenzie":

During the war in Bosnia, the Muslim leadership in Sarajevo became furious when General Mackenzie—who was representing the UN—was not deceived (as many journalists were) by the blatant propaganda generated by the Muslim side and by his insistence at remaining impartial. In an attempt to have him replaced, the Muslims concocted false charges of rape and misconduct against him. These charges were so obviously fabricated they were summarily dismissed by responsible authorities. As the general was able to prove, he was not even in Bosnia when many of the alleged offences took place. Despite the facts, the "Genocide Institute" continues to slander the good name of General Mackenzie. Its web site contains a long list of so-called rape victims who relate in lurid detail how they were raped … by the Canadian officer. They even claim that during some of these rapes the general was "protected '– not by UN troops but by heavily armed "Chetniks." The stories are so obviously fabricated that to those who know the General personally—as I do—can only wonder at the seriously psychotic nature of individuals who would repeat these lunatic charges.

General Mackenzie is a Canadian so he cannot be deemed "inadmissible," but who knows what unpleasantness could await him upon arriving in another country with a powerful Muslim lobby. Extradition for trial in Sarajevo? A long and arduous legal battle to prevent such outcome?

Let it be noted that the "Institute for Research of Genocide of Canada" uses for itself the acronym "IRGC." That acronym is more commonly associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. While conceivably accidental, the coincidence is not altogether inapt. The Canadians will learn, in the fulness of time, the price of kowtowing to these people's demands. They will become less free with each act of surrender, and the demands will have no end.

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2011/02/25/banned-from-canadistan/

Srdja Trifkovic, author of Sword of the Prophet, barred from Canada

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhKkv0Ezd6w

Palestinian jihadists' fabrications of Israeli atrocities are amply documented now, although the mainstream media still retail them; less well known is that the jihad in the Balkans also has a busy propaganda arm. Dr. Srdja Trifkovic, author of the excellent book on Islam and jihad, The Sword of the Prophet, ran afoul of it yesterday, as he was barred from entering Canada. The Serbian Youth League (thanks to George) explains this latest Freedom of Speech Death Watch Alert:

February 24, 2011 (SYL) - Serbian-American professor Dr Srdja Trifkovic was denied access into Canada after being accused of holding a senior position in the Government of Republika Srpska during the Bosnian war by the Vancouver airport immigration authorities. Srdja, who was a foreign affairs expert with links in the Bosnian Serb Government, never held any position in that Government, let alone a senior one. The fabricated reason for deportation was likely the result of lobbying by the extremist organization "The Institute for Research of Genocide in Canada", which is notorious for inventing stories, such as the disproven lie that Canadian General MacKenzie raped a Bosnian woman at a time when he wasn't even in Bosnia, as well as denying the Holocaust in Yugoslavia during World War II. Also, there are strong indications that higher factors in the Canadian government are involved in this scandalous and dark chapter in Canadian history, the investigation is under way.

Jihad Watch reader Joe Serb sent this in:

Srdja Trifkovic was scheduled to speak at a Serb-sponsored gathering at the University of British Columbia. About 60 of us waited outside of Room 222, Swing Space Bldg last night, only to hear that Prof. Trifkovic had been stopped at the airport, and was under questioning for his ideas. He writes on the Muslim danger to Europe and the world. I witnessed a small group of Muslims celebrating the delay, which was likely a cancellation (I waited for 45 minutes after the start date, but most left when we learned that the Professor was still in custody. He was accused of "hate speech" in a student newspaper.

I strongly believe that we have to reply energetically to all such charges; the "hate speech" weapon is increasingly used by the thuggish Leftist/Islamic supremacist axis to silence its opponents, and if we ignore the false charges made, they will be assumed true by those who are naive and unaware of what game is being played.

MORE………. 12 Comments

 

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/02/srdja-trifkovic-author-of-sword-of-the-prophet-barred-from-canada.html

Canada: People for such a time as this in the Balkans

The attempt to ban Dr. Srdja Trifkovic from speaking this week on the Campus of the University of British Columbia is outrageous … Canadians have an unparalleled opportunity to foster freedom and democracy….

Canada: People for such a time as this in the Balkans

 By Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski  Thursday, February 24, 2011

Canada and Canadians, especially new Canadians from the Balkans, have an unprecedented opportunity to foster the concept of an open society, democratic institutions, free market economies, the education of large reservoirs of brain power, and the separation of political power from religion in the Balkans.

Canadians may well be the people for such a time as this – albeit, in face of what appear to be insurmountable political obstacles and centuries-old deep-seated ethnic hatreds. Two outstanding Canadians, Ambassador James Bissett and General Lewis MacKenzie, are among the best informed anywhere on the Balkans and have spoken in balanced ways on how to understand and deal with the Balkan cauldron that has simmered for many generations, which the recent Balkan wars have again bought to a boil.

Multiculturalism has been declared a failure – multicult is dead

For over two centuries various of the European powers, Russians, and Ottomans stirred the pot in their own interests, often only to make matters worse.
Now that multiculturalism has been declared a failure – multicult is dead – by Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper, British Prime Minister David Cameron, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, buttressed by the outburst of the Austrian parliamentarian on the floor of that nation's Parliament last fall, we should consider, as the philosopher A. N. Whitehead said, that our current problems should be regarded as opportunities.

Western Christian national identities and their historic values do mean something historically and are worth conserving. That should be the message to groups refusing to assimilate. A great blessing of my life is that as an immigrant child I was well educated in Canada in English as a second language and assimilated to Canadian culture.

European and American foreign policy in the Balkans, especially as regards the Serbian people, has been badly skewed and continues to work against the best interests of enduring peace, democracy, comity among the several nationalities, and economic progress.

The artificial political framework in Bosnia has forced the several ethnic groups into closed enclaves. It is not working. The Serbs have created Republica Srpska. The Croats are appealing to Russia and the Security Council for protection of their status. The dominant radical al-Quaeda elements continue fostering Jihad and terrorism training compounds.

The Christian culture of Kosovo has been devastated

The Christian culture of Kosovo, illegally highjacked from Serbia contrary to the canons of international law, has been devastated, with hundreds of monasteries, churches, cemeteries, and other landmarks either destroyed, badly damaged or desecrated.

The recent report of Dick Marty to the Council of Europe makes horrific reading: Serbian youths kidnapped by radical Islamists then killed for body parts to be harvested and sold internationally.

Ironically, fear of their own has compelled many thousands of Albanians to flee to the environs of Belgrade in Serbia to escape the radical Islamists who have overwhelmed their society in Albania, Bosnia and Kosovo.

In Croatia Ustasha memorializing continues – the Nazi-backed Croats massacred tens of thousands of Serbs, Romanies and others during World War II, and little or nothing has been done to repatriate the tens of thousands of Serbs who were expelled from their ancestral lands in the Krajina during the 1990s war.

Serbia has become the odd-man-out in Europe, wondering how to re-establish itself among the nations of Europe, how to restore its traditional relationship with America as the loyal ally of the West it was through two world wars, and what to do with political fragmentation of the country and the mafia elements which bedevil society and the economy.

Why do I see this as opportunity for democracy and freedom? A few weeks ago James Bissett, Canada's former Ambassador to Yugoslavia, gave a lecture in Belgrade in which he suggested that Serbia might be better off outside the EU.
Why?

Bissett said that Germany and other European countries would still invest in Serbia even if Serbia remained outside the EU. Membership in the EU could easily inhibit trade and commerce because of the layering on of bureaucracy and inspections from Brussels and the imposition of multitudes of rules.  Freedom of information might be curtailed, especially if Serbs were forced to teach their children that the NATO bombing was justified. Serbs, he said, need no further humiliation—atrocities were committed by all sides during the recent wars. Croats have never acknowledged the true genocide they committed during World War II. Muslims refuse to acknowledge the crimes committed in their name —one can cite the staged terrorism against their own people during the recent hostilities, about which General MacKenzie has written.

What should Serbia do, Ambassador Bissett asked? Very simple, he said: put its own house in order by stamping out corruption, improving the economy, getting rid of the criminal mafia, and becoming self-sufficient—as it was when it became the harbinger of democracy in the latter part of the nineteenth century and can become again.

Here's what Canadians and Americans of Balkan heritage can do:

Foster education (such as the Studenica Foundation has done through scholarships for students in upper High School).

Encourage Canadian and American universities to underwrite university undergraduates and graduate students from Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia-Hercegovina, and Kosovo to study in North America. Anticipate leader-formation.

Establish professional and business links with aspiring professionals and entrepreneurs in the Balkans – there are many, many talented young men and women there, especially in engineering, business, technology, medicine, and the sciences.

Insist on the development of open societies that are committed to the democratic process and a market economy.

The West is ignoring the existential crisis that pervades the Balkans. Gerrymandering the political process has not worked.

It is time for Canadians and Americans of Balkan heritage to think outside the box. They can make a difference despite the present political and main street media climate on Balkan matters in North America. Modern communication techniques enable little people to break through the stereotypes.  This is an exceptional opportunity.

 

(1) Comments

---

Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski Most recent columns Dr. Samuel Mikolaski, is a retired theological professor.  His curriculum vitae and published work are on his website: drsamstheology.com Dr.  Mikolaski can be reached at: sjmikolaski@gmail.com

http://www.allvoices.com/s/event-8294580/aHR0cDovL2NhbmFkYWZyZWVwcmVzcy5jb20vaW5kZXgucGhwL2FydGljbGUvMzM3NDc=

Economists are paid for what?

Economists are paid for what?

23.02.2011 | 18:03

Economists are paid for what?

Where are the world's economists? And what are they paid for? They are trained to produce viable ideas for the implementation of workable systems which cater for new realities. Now that the planned economic system has virtually disappeared, and the market economy is so obviously a failure, where are these gurus, masterminds of tomorrow's new economic system?

Rising from the ashes, implementing systems where there used to be nothing, was the Socialist/Communist model which provided universal, excellent and free education, healthcare services, free dental treatment, free public transportation, free or heavily subsidised public utilities, free or subsidised leisure/cultural activities, guaranteed free housing for all, guaranteed a job in a society of zero unemployment, social mobility and security on the streets.

Against this system worked the so-called Capitalist world, for decades, complete with its assassination attempts, murders, sabotage, terrorist attacks and endemic unemployment, total insecurity on the streets where marauding gangs of drug addicts and alcoholics trash city centers and kick old ladies to the ground for fun...the society and model which has already attacked and destroyed free universal education and healthcare, turning them into businesses, and in which life is a drama from the word go.

It is a drama to have and bring up a child, it is a drama to get the child into higher education, it is a drama to buy a house, it is a drama to get a job, it is another drama to retain the job - and home - and God forbid if someone needs dental care or if any other emergency arises.

While the former system found itself at a crossroads after all of its main objectives had been reached and achieved, and after it had freed countless millions of peoples from the yolk of imperialism and installed socially progressive governments for them, the latter has simply failed to provide for these countries what they hoped to achieve when they decided to try something different...This is hardly surprising since the Capitalist system never had its own house set in order to begin with.

Now, welcome to the wonderful world which belongs to the large corporations and the banks, the owners of Capital, as Marx always claimed, and as the followers of the Socialist model had said all along. Welcome to the wonderful world of high and increasing food prices, one in which, experts claim, there will soon not be enough food to go round and in which families are set to spend ever-increasing budgets on basic necessities.

Welcome to the wonderful world of endemic unemployment, in which a "good" scenario is "only" an unemployment rate of 4% (wow!), one in which a growing number of cliques have been formed to cater for the whims of a growing number of elitist good-for-nothings whose connections see them gain lucrative sinecures in some Commission or Committee or other, welcome to the world in which international law simply does not exist (as per Kosovo and the US veto against a text condemning Israel's illegal activities).

Welcome to the world in which all we had fought for - workers' rights, children's rights, women's rights, universal education and healthcare - has been chipped away at and whose very essence is threatened. Countries that had a decent school system now have none. Countries where women's rights were guaranteed (Afghanistan and Iraq, for instance) have repressive regimes where women can be beaten or decapitated for not wearing a veil.

Welcome to the world in which an old lady dare not set foot outside her house after dark. Welcome to the world in which it is increasingly not what you know (because you cannot afford to pay for an education) but who you know (to avoid becoming one of the Lost Generation working almost for free in a call center).

So, where are the economists? Are they or are they not supposed to produce ideas? And they are paid, for what? I will table an idea, for free: why don't we all go back to a controlled economy? The public sector will miraculously and suddenly have the P-word (a Plan); the private sector will be regulated, and the resources of the world will belong to the people of the world, not a handful of mega-rich corporations. And your pension plans will be safe from the hands of those who gamble them away on speculative and will likely leave you with nothing.

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey Pravda.Ru