Muammar Gaddafi and Libyan crisis

[Armanen]

Re: Muammar Gaddafi and Libyan crisis

No doubt, Sarkozy and Obama both receive, daily orders from their masters in Tel aviv.

You keep thinking that you have all the answers

[retro]

Re: Muammar Gaddafi and Libyan crisis

That all depends on the chain of command between Obama, Sarkozy and Israel

No doubt, Sarkozy and Obama both receive, daily orders from their masters in Tel aviv.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Muammar Gaddafi and Libyan crisis

Global Research always has some thoughtful insight on all things political...


Another NATO Intervention? Libya: Is This Kosovo All Over Again?

Less 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.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=23590

[KanadaHye]

Re: Muammar Gaddafi and Libyan crisis

Hahahah... Libya owns a pretty large share of Fiat and Fiat owns Chrysler What a mess.


LIBYAN SHARE FREEZE 'NOT DISCUSSED' BY CABINET

(ANSA) - Rome, March 3 - The Italian cabinet did not on Thursday discuss freezing Libyan shares in companies including Italy's top bank, carmaker, engineering group and oil operator, Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said.

Italy, unlike Britain, Spain, Switzerland, Austria, Canada and the United States, has yet to freeze shares held by Libya in its businesses, although the Bank of Italy has ordered possible movements of Libyan assets to be tracked.

Frattini said after the cabinet meeting that the government had "taken note" of the central bank's recommendation.

Frattini said Wednesday a joint European Union decision would be needed before any move to freeze the shareholdings.

Asked if Italy could freeze Libyan stakes in Unicredit, Fiat, Finmeccanica and ENI, the foreign minister replied: "These are measures which have not been established by the (United Nations) Security Council or the European Union".

New EU measures would require an OK from the bloc's financial ministers, he stressed, saying that, "for now" he was not aware of any such talks.

Earlier on Wednesday, Interior Minister Roberto Maroni said the Italian government couldn't block Libyan stakes in businesses.

Libya has a large stake in Italy's biggest bank, Unicredit, as well as shares in carmaker Fiat, aerospace and engineering giant Finmeccanica, fuels colossus ENI, soccer club Juventus and other companies including construction group Impregilo.

Tripoli also has big chunks of oil fields and pipelines operated by ENI.

"I don't think the government can intervene and freeze these shares," Maroni said.

"One thing is freezing current accounts while stakeholdings are another," he said, urging bourse regulator Consob to "say something about this".

http://www.lifeinitaly.com/news/liby...cussed-cabinet

[KanadaHye]

Re: Muammar Gaddafi and Libyan crisis

I would give real money to hear what Sarkozy's swear words were in reaction to Obama dictating to Europe to take on Turkey.

That all depends on the chain of command between Obama, Sarkozy and Israel

[Eddo211]

Re: Muammar Gaddafi and Libyan crisis

Erdogan is merely trying the revive Turkey's EU membership talks. .If Turkey really where to start to suddenly play a increased role in regional security affairs. Then it would undermine it's standing and influence within the Islamic world.

I would give real money to hear what Sarkozy's swear words were in reaction to Obama dictating to Europe to take on Turkey.

[Federate]

Re: Muammar Gaddafi and Libyan crisis

Sitting ducks for Gaddafi's admittedly rather lousy airforce. Gaddafi's army seemingly has field guns and they have been making light work of the rebels technical vehicle.
It's a wonder that the rebels have done as well, as they have.

Ghazafi's airforce is as old as him Most of the equipment hasn't been upgraded or is permanently grounded due to crippling sanctions against Libya and because of possible deliberate lack of proper care (due to fears of military coups). The only jets that were in relatively useful shape were the Mirage French jets but two of those are now in Malta and one is reported to have been shot down.

Despite this, the Libya air force is pretty large and I think Ghazafi's afraid of giving too many planes orders at the same time in the fears that some pilots might do what those other two did in Malta so he might be limiting the number of pilots using the aircraft and how many are in the air at the same time. Another reason of its apparent ineffectiveness might be he is afraid of making it seem like an all-out civil war so he might be limiting it to a bombing here and there. Contrary to what we think is happening, most reports show that the air force is actually bombing arms depots and other strategic targets. It is also being used as a scare tactic.

[Federate]

Re: Muammar Gaddafi and Libyan crisis

It seems that pro-Gaddafi forces have Zawiya surrounded but not cleared and taken the town yet.

Those are outdated, Zawiya is back under government control http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Az_Zawiyah

[KanadaHye]

Re: Muammar Gaddafi and Libyan crisis

Anyone else find it odd that there are 1.5 million Egyptians working in Libya while Egypt employs people from other nations. Meanwhile both Egyptians and Libyans complain about unemployment because multi-national corporations are hiring migrant workers under the umbrella of "globalization"?.

Is it possible that corporate practices may be undermining and even destabilizing governments?

[Haykakan]

Re: Muammar Gaddafi and Libyan crisis

British politicians are blaming each other after a top-secret mission to eastern Libya to meet opposition leaders turned into an embarrassing fiasco straight out of the Keystone Kops when the team ended up handcuffed and detained by the rebels.

The botched effort comes after the daring but much-criticized British Royal Air Force rescue missions to Libya last week, where pilots swooped in under the radar using black-and-white Google Map printouts to evacuate oil workers.

A group described as a "small British diplomatic team" flew into Libya in helicopters under cover of darkness early last Friday. Australia's ABC News said they were carrying guns, explosives and passports of multiple nationalities.

Six soldiers from Britain's elite Special Air Forces, and two men described in some news reports as "diplomats" and in others as "intelligence officers," were mistaken for mercenaries and taken into custody by the very opposition leaders British officials say they went to support.

One of the team arrived holding a letter signed by Prime Minister David Cameron, the Daily Mirror reported today. The Mirror and the Telegraph described the two so-called diplomats as intelligence officers, although Britain has denied the team was part of a spy mission.

The team was allowed to leave the country over the weekend after being detained two days on a military base held by the opposition.

In a statement to Parliament Monday, amid some gales of laughter, Foreign Secretary William Hague was forced to admit there had been a "serious misunderstanding" about the team sent to make contact with the Interim National Council, based in Benghazi.

"Last week I authorized the dispatch of a small British diplomatic team to eastern Libya, in uncertain circumstances which we judged required their protection, to build on these initial contacts and to assess the scope for closer diplomatic dialogue," Hague said.

"They were withdrawn yesterday after a serious misunderstanding about their role, leading to their temporary detention," he said.

The British government was further humiliated when the Libyan government intercepted a groveling exchange between the British ambassador and a spokesman for the opposition council after the team was taken into custody by the rebels.

A member of Moammar Gadhafi's regime then gave copies of the conversation to the BBC, which broadcast the tape Sunday, and to more than 100 members of the foreign media in Tripoli, The New York Times reported.

In the recording, the British ambassador, Richard Northern, calls the incident a "misunderstanding" and pleads for the men's release. In response, the Libyan opposition spokesman told Northern that the group had made a "big mistake coming in with a helicopter."

To make matters even worse, Libya's foreign minister, Musa Kusa, used the incident as proof that the West is trying to divide Libya, the Times reported.

"The English are yearning for the colonial era of the past," Kusa said. "The first nations who started getting in touch with the secessionists were the English, also the French and the Americans."

One senior SAS source told the Daily Mirror: "David Cameron ... [was] trying to do a Maggie Thatcher and using the SAS regiment as his own tame fighting force."

He added, "Throughout this flawed mission and the fallout from it, it has been clear the SAS men were not backed up -- even when they were rescuing civilians in the desert."

Hague told members of Parliament that Cameron was aware of the mission. Cameron, in turn, said that Hague was in charge of the mission.

The Labour opposition quickly criticized Cameron's government.

Sponsored Links"The news on Sunday that British diplomatic and military personnel were being held was seen as just the latest setback for the U.K. and raises further serious questions about ministers' grip and response to the unfolding events in Libya," Douglas Alexander, Labour's foreign affairs spokesman, said.

Alexander then asked "if some new neighbors moved into the foreign secretary's street, he would introduce himself by ringing the doorbell, or instead choose to climb over the fence in the middle of the night."