Gaddafi on democracy, dictators and world peace (Al Jazeera, 25 Sep. 2009) …….
Sott.net
Fri, 28 Oct 2011 12:56 CDT
related Video update :
Obama Calls Murder of Children in Libya A “Success”
.
A world that only understands the language of power ………………
http://www.voltairenet.org
Partners | Beirut (Lebanon) | 27 September 2011 ![]()


- Westerners turning international law into a farce.
- ©UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe
International affairs
Editorial : A world that only understands the language of power
The Western position in support of Israel in the face of the Palestinian request in form addressed to the United Nations, constituted yet another proof for the high level of international hypocrisy surrounding the Palestinian cause since 1948.
The recognition of a fictive state at the UN carries a moral and political character to immunize the Palestinian diplomatic position in the face of Israel, the violating state which has been protected by the American veto ever since its establishment, to the point of obstructing all the international resolutions against it and preventing any serious international investigation into the genocide crimes it perpetrated against the Palestinians.
For decades, this American-European protection has prevented any serious discussion at the UN of the racial segregation to which the Palestinians are being subjected in their own land by the last “state” in the world representing an occupation based on racial segregation and discrimination against the original citizens since the liberation of South Africa.
Nicolas Sarkozy spoke at the UN about the European role which was always humiliatingly affiliated with the American policy since the days of Charles de Gaulle. The hypocrite and impostor Sarkozy knows well that a state called Syria –against which he is currently conspiring to serve Israel – did not miss an opportunity to call on Europe to play a role that is independent from the American hegemony policy and the blunt bias in favor of Israel. He knows, like all the impostors among the Western European rulers, that Israel is committing hundreds of crimes against humanity every day, is responsible for the displacement of millions of Palestinians and the occupation of Lebanese and Syrian territories whose water wealth it is pillaging.
The West which is busy thinking of ways to protect Israel before the American fleeing from Iraq and to divide the control over the oil and water in the Arab countries, is conspiring day and night against the resistance’s fort that is supporting the Palestinians, i.e. Syria. This provides yet another proof for the fact that the so-called international community only recognizes the logic of power and that all which is called international law is nothing but a mere lie.
Arab Affairs
News analysis: Commotion, pressures and terrorism in Syria
The retreat is ongoing at the level of the response to the calls made by the Syrian opposition movements to demonstrate, after the unity of the opposition itself turned into a slogan during last Friday’s demonstrations. Its divisions and conflicts have reached the level of a major scandal in the opinion of the opposition’s partisans themselves, as most of them are recognizing that this rift is due to disloyal competition, and connections to the states sponsoring the plans to sabotage Syria.
Firstly, the scandalous paradoxes in the course of the plan to sabotage Syria increased during this past week, the last of which was launched by Mr. Haitham al-Maleh who is claiming in some media outlets to be the most influential leader in the opposition and who was behind the call for one of the Istanbul meetings with the support of the Muslim Brotherhood Organization and the Turkish intelligence. Quite simply, Haitham al-Maleh demanded NATO’s military interference in Syria on one channel then appeared on another to recant his previous statement following the commotion and embarrassment it raised. This is one example of the political mentality prevailing over the leaders of the Syrian opposition movements and revealing their real intentions.
Secondly, on the media scene, the oil channels that are targeting Syria resorted to the use of old and falsified tapes to give the impression there were massive and ongoing protests on the ground. Last Friday, Al-Jazeera channel thus aired pictures of a demonstration raising banners about the famine in Somalia, as the fabricators of the sounds that accompanied the footage did not pay attention to the fact that the banners called for donations to the Somali children and not for the toppling of the Syrian regime.
Thirdly, in parallel to the media determination to give the impression that the protests are ongoing, the facts prove that the number of those responding to the calls has retreated below four thousand throughout Syria, and that the main facet of the opposition’s activities has become armed actions against the state and its institutions through terrorist attacks that targeted the army and the security forces in more than one area in the country and especially in the Homs province.
The remaining months until the end of the year, i.e. the date of the beginning of the American escape from Iraq, will witness numerous escalation campaigns and attempts to engage in negotiations because Syria and Iran are still rejecting any compromise that would grant the American occupation a price in exchange for its exit from Iraq, while the primary price demanded by the Americans at this level is securing Israel’s protection for which they moved the missiles shield inside the Turkish-Syrian border.
The Arab file
Libya
• The violent clashes between the Libyan revolutionaries and the forces loyal to Kaddafi proceeded in Bani Walid, Sert and some other regions in which Kaddafi’s loyalists are present throughout the week, while the fighters of the new regime in Libya were able to impose their control over the city of Sebha.
• The members of the national transitional council announced the postponement of the consensus over the formation of a new national government until further notice. As for the national transitional council, it announced it intended to lead the country for the next eight months until the election of a constituent assembly and the staging of general elections within a period not exceeding one year. But UN Envoy Ian Martin assured that the six-month deadline will not begin until the new authorities announce the full liberation of the country.
• Head of the national transitional council Mustafa Abdul Jalil thanked the international community for helping Libya, pledging that the forces loyal to Kaddafi will benefit from fair trials. In the meantime, Aisha Kaddafi, Colonel Muammar Kaddafi’s daughter, issued her first voice recording in which she assured that her father and brothers were leading the battles against “NATO and its agents”, and assured they will eventually prevail.
Yemen
• Since last Sunday, Yemen has been witnessing violent clashes between those loyal to President Ali Abdullah Saleh and the president’s oppositionists. The tribes participated in the clashes and the Yemeni capital Sana’a turned into a guerilla zone that witnessed the fall of a large number of dead and wounded. A ceasefire agreement was reached between Saleh’s forces and the ones supporting the opposition, but the accord soon collapsed.
• Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh returned to the country on Friday, calling a few hours after his arrival on all the political, military and security sides in the authority and the opposition to a full truce and a ceasefire that would allow the various parties to reach agreement and consensus.
Palestine
• The Israeli government mobilized its security apparatuses and proclaimed an emergency plan to face the repercussions of the Palestinian intention to head to the UN and see the proclamation of the state.
• American President Barack Obama announced on Wednesday in New York there were no shortcuts to end the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis, at a time when the US threatened to use the veto right at the Security Council to deter any request for the accession of the Palestinian state to the Security Council.
• In this context, the cities of the occupied West Bank and the city of Gaza, along with some Arab countries, witnessed marches and demonstrations in support of the Palestinian effort to earn a membership at the UN. A request for that purpose was presented by Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas on Friday to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, saying in a speech: “No one with an ounce of conscience would reject the full membership of Palestine at the UN.”
Syria
• The dialogue sessions conducted in the provinces stressed the importance of dialogue to resolve the domestic issues and prevent the foreign interference attempts aiming at undermining Syria’s national unity and at dividing the region. They also stressed the necessity of upholding the resistance and rejectionism.
• And while the disputes escalated between the Syrian opposition forces despite the American, French, Turkish and Qatari efforts to unify them, Recep Tayyip Erdogan joined Barack Obama in calling for the increase of the sanctions.
• Once again it was proven on Friday that the number of people who responded to the demonstration calls has retreated, while the armed attacks against the army and the security forces mounted throughout the Syrian cities and especially in Homs.
• On the other hand, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad praised the “balanced Russian position toward the developments in Syria,” as he was receiving a delegation from the Russian Federation. Al-Assad also warned against the foreign interference attempts in Syrian domestic affairs and the attempts to undermine stability in the country.
• On the field, a number of security elements were killed while others were wounded in armed ambushes set up by terrorist groups.
Qatar
• At a time when the prince of Qatar Hamad Ben Khalifa al-Thani is said to be preparing his succession in light of his illness, director of Al-Jazeera network Wadah Khanfar was forced to present his resignation after eight years during which he managed the Qatari media institution. Khanfar, who was known for being close to the Muslim Brotherhood and even Al-Qaeda organization, had seen his position weakened following the emergence of the Wikileaks documents which revealed the details of meetings he held with CIA officials to tackle the direction of the channel’s coverage.
• It is worth mentioning that media reports had claimed that Khanfar’s ousting was due to his disputes with Azmi Bechara who is considered to be very close to the Emir. Consequently, the latter was forced to choose between the two and sacrificed Khanfar.
Israeli file
• “A dangerous historical moment” is how the ongoing drama at the UN was described by the Israeli papers, reaching its peak with the speeches delivered by Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The reactions to Abu Mazen’s speech were very harsh, as it was considered to be a speech of instigation violating all the Israeli-Palestinian pacts and agreements.
• The papers indicated that American President Barack Obama stressed that the positions of the Israeli and Palestinian sides were not that far apart, at a time when Europe has been exerting pressures on Abbas to get him to settle for a symbolic recognition.
• The papers indicated that the Israeli army and police raised their state of alertness to its highest levels in preparation for the eruption of any acts violating public order in the West Bank areas. The papers also shed light on Obama’s speech at the UN, in which he said that Israel was a small state surrounded by enemies.
Lebanese affairs
News analysis: Proportionality and the end of the monopolization of the representation
There is a political debate in Lebanon over the electoral law, ever since the government ratified in its ministerial statement the intention to work on a new law based on the principle of proportional parliamentary representation. We can notice at this level that many reactions and positions emerged in regard to this issue, all of which reflecting the electoral interests of the various powers composing the Lebanese political reality.
Firstly, it is clear that the Future Movement assigned the Phalange Party and the Lebanese Forces to obstruct any consensus during the Bkerke meeting over the support of proportionality. This measure which was adopted by Saad al-Hariri with his two partners reflected the Future Movement’s fear of losing the monopolization of the Sunni sect’s political representation,, since Al-Hariri’s oppositionists in Beirut, West Bekaa, Sidon, Tripoli and Akkar will be able to get a number of parliamentary seats that could expand with the emergence of the centrist bloc headed by Prime Minister Najib Mikati.
Secondly, it is clear that Deputy Walid Jumblatt who wishes to maintain his sectarian leadership, is afraid that proportionality would allow his political opponents and especially the Arslan wing to get parliamentary seats from outside his political cloak. There is another concern affecting Jumblatt at the level of the Christian political reality in the Mount Lebanon districts that are traditionally considered to be under his command. One of the reasons behind Jumblatt’s opposition is the creation of a climate allowing the launching of the negotiations over the electoral alliances, especially with the Free Patriotic Movement and its leader General Michel Aoun.
What the Lebanese people need is the expansion of the joint space to draft their national options instead of remaining limited to the specificities of the sects and the denominations.
The Lebanese file
• The electricity draft was ratified after three sessions held by the joint parliamentary committees. The deputies participating in these committees’ meetings listened to the explanations of Minister of Water and Energy Gibran Bassil in regard to the electricity plan presented to the council. The opposition deputies interrupted the minister more than once and inquired time and time again about the conditions book, the monitoring sides and the sources of funding. They also demanded the appointment of a regulating committee within three months and an administration board for EDL within two months. In the third session which was attended by Prime Minister Najib Mikati, Speaker Nabih Berri started by summarizing what went on during the session, reaching the conclusion that everyone agreed over the core and the principles. Hence, he suggested the adoption of a Cabinet decision to be proposed for voting on Thursday and everyone agreed to that.
• On Thursday, parliament unanimously ratified the plan to reform the electricity sector. For his part, General Michel Aoun assured following the meeting of his bloc there was “no project rising up to the level of the electricity project presented to parliament.” He stressed that the electricity plan will be fully monitored, pointing to the fact that the projects carried out by the Council for Development and Reconstruction were never monitored, whether before or after their implementation.
• Hezbollah Deputy Secretary General Sheikh Naim Kassem believed that the government was facing “a political side that is not opposing, rather trying to cause failure at any price.” He considered that this was due to the “frustration they endured in light of their repeated failures at the level of their political performance.” He added: “I do not wish to specify what the March 14 is doing in the context of the conspiracy, but I will settle for saying they are often acting in a way serving the Israeli-American project.”
• This week, developments were witnessed at the level of the kidnappers of the seven Estonians, knowing that kidnapping and release of the latter hostages were surrounded with utter secrecy. In this respect, the two most dangerous elements in the group that kidnapped the Estonians were killed following an ambush which was set up by the Information Branch that is affiliated with the Internal Security Forces. Questions emerged in regard to this development in light of suspicions that they might have been killed to conceal the details of the kidnapping operation. What was noticeable at this level was the position issued by General Michel Aoun who said there was no reason to congratulate the Information Branch on this operation, considering that the latter did not succeed in arresting the kidnappers and in uncovering who had ordered the kidnapping.
Positions of President Suleiman in New York
Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour indicated that Lebanon will deter any resolution condemning Syria, adding that Lebanon wanted Syria to exit its predicament, not see the issuance of resolutions condemning it.
President Michel Suleiman held a meeting with Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas, during which Suleiman stressed Lebanon’s rejection of naturalization and its support of the Palestinian state option.
President Suleiman then delivered Lebanon’s speech before the UN General Assembly, stressing Lebanon’s insistence on its maritime rights and its free exploitation of its resources. He also called for the condemnation of and exertion of pressures on Israel to get it to stop its violation of the Lebanese territories and airspace and implement the international resolutions. He also stressed Lebanon’s support of Palestine’s request to earn membership at the UN, reiterating the rejection of naturalization.
Prime Minister Najib Mikati left Beirut on Saturday on his way to New York while presiding over a prominent delegation. Mikati is expected to head the Lebanese mission at the UN Security Council since Lebanon will be chairing the Council during the month of September.
Source
New Orient News (Lebanon)
.
Let’s Get Out of the Middle East – and the UN …..
Listen to Rep. Ron Paul deliver this address.
The Palestinian Authority’s recent announcement that it would seek U.N. recognition as an independent state dominated the news and the political debate in the United States last week, though in truth it should mean very little to us. Only a political class harboring the illusion it can run the world obsesses over the aspirations of a tiny population on a tiny piece of land thousands of miles away. Remember, the U.N. initiated this persistent conflict with its 1947 Partition Plan.
Unfortunately, the debate is dominated by those who either support the Israeli side in the conflict, or those who support the Palestinian desire for statehood. We rarely seem to hear the view of those who support the U.S. side and U.S. interests. I am on that side. I believe that we can no longer police the world. We can no longer bribe the Israelis and Palestinians to continue an endless “peace process” that goes nowhere. It is not in our interest to hector the Palestinians or the Israelis, or to “export” democracy to the region but reject it when people vote the “wrong” way.
I have reservations about the Palestinian drive for U.N. recognition. Personally, I wish the United States would de-recognize the United Nations. As most readers already know, in every Congress I introduce legislation to end our membership in that organization. The U.N. is a threat to our sovereignty — and as we are the main source of its income, it is a threat to our economic well-being. Increasingly over the past several years, we see the United Nations providing political and legal cover for the military aspirations of interventionists rather than serving as an international forum to preserve peace. Neoconservatives in the U.S. have grown to love the United Nations as they co-opt the organization under the guise of endless “reform.” Under the sovereignty-destroying doctrine of “Responsibility to Protect,” adopted at the 2005 World Summit, the U.N. takes it upon itself to intervene in internal conflicts of its member states whenever it believes that human rights are being violated. Thus under “Responsibility to Protect,” the U.N. provides the green light for a kind of global no-knock raid on any sovereign country.
If asked, I would personally counsel the Palestinians to avoid the United Nations. U.N. membership and participation is no guarantee that sovereignty will be respected. We see what happens to U.N. members such as Iraq and Libya when those countries’ leaders fall out of favor with U.S. administrations: under U.S. and allied pressure, a fig-leaf resolution is adopted in the U.N. to facilitate devastating military intervention. When the U.N. gave NATO the green light to bomb Libya, there was no genocide taking place. It was a purely preventive war. The result? Thousands dead, a destroyed country, and extremely dubious new leaders.
While I do not see U.N. membership as a particularly productive move for the Palestinian leadership, I do not believe the U.S. should use its position in the U.N. Security Council to block their membership. I believe in self-determination of peoples, and I recognize that peoples may wish to pursue statehood by different means. As we saw after the Cold War, numerous new states were born out of the ruins of the USSR as the various old Soviet Republics decided that smaller states were preferable to an enormous and oppressive multinational conglomerate.
The real, pro-U.S. solution to the problems in the Middle East is for us to end all foreign aid, stop arming foreign countries, encourage peaceful diplomatic resolutions to conflicts, and disengage militarily. In others words, follow Jefferson’s admonition: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”
.
Ban Ki-moon: A Record of Failure and Betrayal ……
|
||||||
|
Analyst Stephen Lendman joins in the world chorus highlighting the demise of the United Nations
by Stephen Lendman
The UN Charter’s Preamble states: “WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED – to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and – to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and – to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and – to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom….” The body affirms international support for tolerance, peace and security, and resolve to promote universal economic and social advancement. However, since its 1945 founding, it’s failed on all counts, even though some of its agencies (like UNICEF, WFP, UNHCR and UNESCO) at times provide aid in areas of health, education, food assistance, refugees, social development and more. It’s never enough though, timely, or with resolve to support troubled people adequately in times of need. Moreover, global wars raged every year post-WW II to the present. The UN’s been unable or disinterested in stopping them. One of its fatal flaws is structure, hamstrung by its dominant member, America. It can and does veto measures other member states support, notably when contrary to its imperial interests. As a result, no action was taken when Indonesia invaded East Timor in 1975. Hundreds of thousands were slaughtered in a secretly US-authorized aggression. Its TNI forces were armed, funded and supported by Washington. In 1999, it was impotent again after East Timor voted for independence, after which TNI forces attacked and slaughtered thousands more. During South Africa’s border wars and invasion of Namibia in the 1960s and 70s, it was sidelined, as well as during a 36-year Guatemala state-sponsored genocide against its indigenous Mayan majority, following the CIA’s ouster of democratically elected Jacobo Arbenz Guzman. Dozens of other examples reveal a dismal record of failure and betrayal of its high-sounding principles and mandate to enforce them. It didn’t earlier or now, including by deploying Blue Helmets as peacekeepers. In fact, they’re hostile occupiers, serving imperial interests in Haiti, South Lebanon, Rwanda, Kosovo, Bosnia, DRC Congo, Sudan, Somalia, various other countries, and its initial UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) since 1948, failing to bring peace to Palestine. Yet it’s still there, performing no active role, opposing the interests of people they’re sworn to protect. During his tenure as Secretary-General, Kofi Annan (January 1, 1997 – December 31, 2006) was little more than an imperial tool, never achieving or working for peace anywhere. He never condemned or acted to end the devastating economic sanctions against Iraqis that killed up to 1.5 million defenseless men, women and children. He didn’t use his mandate to denounce Washington’s lawless 2003 war. No matter that it’s based on lies to permit slaughtering hundreds of thousands more and be able to plunder another occupied country. He was silent while war raged in Afghanistan and still does without end. He backed or failed to act against Israel’s illegal occupation, its worst crimes against Palestine, and its illegal 2006 Lebanon war. He took no action to denounce Washington’s failed attempts to oust Hugo Chavez, and showed a disturbing indifference to the pain and suffering of his own people throughout the continent of his birth. Instead, he dutifully served Washington, other dominant powers, and corporate predation of Africa’s riches and elsewhere. His entire tenure was a testimony to failure and betrayal. So is Ban Ki-moon’s since becoming Secretary-General on January 1, 2007. Ever since, he’s been a co-conspirator in war crimes and other abuses. In fact, one of his first acts was to reverse the UN’s longstanding opposition to capital punishment. It’s a barbaric practice often sentencing innocent people to death, notably in America. At the time, he dismissively said whether or not to enforce it “is for each and every member State to decide,” instead of forthrightly condemning it. Nor did his restructuring plan address the Security Council’s illegitimate veto power, giving one nation like America authority over all others. It’s abused the practice ever since. Instead, it’s high time the body reflected majority rule, giving all nations equal say on issues affecting everyone. Ban’s overall silence, inaction, and support for wrong over right speak volumes. In fact, despite its own often deplorable record, Human Rights Watch (HRW) acknowledged Ban’s shamelessness. Its “World Report 2011: A Facade of Action” included criticism of his “quiet diplomacy facade of (in)action” for not taking forceful steps when needed. HRW’s executive director Kenneth Roth criticized his “use of dialogue and cooperation in lieu of public pressure….on abusive governments,” notably America and its imperial partners. In fact, said Roth, “(f)ar from condemning repression, Ban sometimes (goes) out of his way to portray repressive governments in a positive light.” He meant third world despots, not the world’s leading human rights abuser, waging lawless imperial wars and engaging in other scandalous actions. In response, Ban’s office disagreed, despite clear evidence of his complicity in grievous crimes of war and against humanity by indifference, silence, and support for Western aggression. Putting lipstick on that pig doesn’t wash. Nor have his spineless measures protected whistleblowers or prevented peacekeeper killings, rape, sexual exploitation, corruption and other crimes. In addition, he hasn’t defended human rights or condemned violations against them, notably by Western countries. Nor has he denounced aggressive wars and other lawless acts. How can he when he supports them, including Washington’s ouster of democratically elected Honduran President Manuel Zelaya on June 28, 2009. Or the Obama administration’s militarization of Haiti and complicity in rigging the electoral process to install stealth Duvalierist Michel (“Sweet Micky) Martelly, an anti-populist former Kompa singer supporter of powerful corrupt corporatist interests. Moreover, Ban backed regime change in Ivory Coast. He authorized a lawless French-backed military operation against Ivorian President Laurent Gbagbo, killing hundreds of civilians. He also echoed Washington’s call for Gaddafi’s ouster, saying he lost all legitimacy. At the same time, he backs cutthroat rebel paramilitaries, and supports lawless air strikes. They’ve laid waste to large parts of Libya and still do, killing and injuring tens of thousands. They also transformed Libya into a charnel house human rights disaster. Instead of condemning, stopping, or preventing wars, he authorized and cheerled them, betraying his mandate to support peace and human rights. Shamelessly serving Israel, not Palestine, he caused great harm in the process, including besieged Gaza denied flotilla aid from arriving. He even petitioned world leaders to back Israel’s demand to direct what it permits “through legitimate crossings and established channels” to prevent vital aid getting through or enough of it. By appointing his own commission to investigate Israel’s May 2010 Mavi Marmara massacre, he tried to whitewash his own Human Rights Council’s condemnation, as well as independent ones denouncing Israel’s cold-blooded murder of nine civilians and injuring dozens more in international waters. These were high crimes – piracy he should have forthrightly condemned, but he didn’t. Instead, he dutifully paid homage to Israel as he always does. Despite representing 193 member states, Ban only serves Washington, Israel, and other dominant powers. He thumbs his nose at the rest, including majority General Assembly positions on numerous human rights and other vital issues. In other words, in derogation of his sworn mandate, he solely represents dominant interests. Notably they’re those of Washington, Israel, and their imperial partners, ravaging targeted countries to carve up their corpses for profit. As a result, he shares culpability with lawless predator states, harming billions worldwide by his contempt for human rights. In fact, the very notion’s not in his vocabulary, let alone concern for people in dire need. They’re on their own because Ban won’t observe his sworn mandate to help them. It’s a testimony to his deplorable record. It’s appalling enough to have earned him a second term last June, representing wealth and power for another five years at the expense of billions worldwide he scorns. It’s the mettle of a failed Secretary-General, a legacy history won’t let him forget or expunge. Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening. .
|
‘Russia to oppose UN anti-Syria bid’
http://www.presstv.ir

In an interview the Financial Times, Medvedev slammed the way the UN Resolution 1973 on Libya had been interpreted by Western powers, and said he would not like “a Syrian resolution to be pulled off in a similar manner,” Reuters reported.
“What I am not ready to support is a resolution [similar to the one] on Libya because it is my deep conviction that a good resolution has been turned into a piece of paper that is being used to provide cover for a meaningless military operation,” the Russian president pointed out.
“Right now, I am not sure that any resolution is needed because a resolution may say one thing but actions would be quite different. The resolution may say: ‘We condemn the use of force in Syria’ and after that, planes will take off into the air,” he further explained.
Since the beginning of the unrests in Syria in mid-March, scores of people, including security forces, have been killed.
The shadowy opposition accuses the security forces of being behind the killings. But the Syrian government blames armed gangs for the violence, saying that the unrest is being orchestrated from outside the Middle Eastern country.
In April, the Washington Post published secret diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks, which indicated that the US has conducted a long campaign to overthrow the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
The Syrian president has vowed to bring the people responsible for the killings to justice.
.
Britain, the Traitor Nation: Media Disinformation and Crimes against Humanity in Libya
|
by Dr. David Halpin
|
|
![]() |
|
|
Global Research, April 24, 2011
|
|
“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations…Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter.” UN Charter – 1: Purposes and Principles http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml
The vultures wheel over Libya beside the drones but roasted carrion is not their usual feast. The flag of the Kingdom of Libya is being waved in victory. The jubilant rebels have decided on discretion rather than valour. The charred skeletons of the government tank crew have been left below and cannot join the party. Perhaps the celebrants know that the ‘coalition’ dispense U238 as liberally as their illusory democracy.
The royalist flag raised in victory before the human remnants are removed
The vultures scent the sweet crude and see all that easy land for US bases banished by Ghaddafi.
These predators are being assisted, as per usual, by the State Broadcaster (BBC) with Channel 4 close behind.
Tanks are being ‘taken out’ but never, never are the crews within mentioned by the news readers.
The significance of these olive skinned humans are as grains of sand. But it is over in a flash. ‘So humane, so why refer to the brothers and the fathers?’ A millisecond or two after the armour is punctured by uranium depleted of U235 alone, the fireball cremates the crew within a few more milliseconds.
The minute solid particles resulting from combustion of the U238 with its infinite half life of 4.5 billion years rise in the thermals above the blistered tank. Some will settle, and some will stay in the air at all levels, eventually dispersing in every direction. Inhalation will ensure the most intimate contact with the cells of all mammals. The ionizing radiation of the germ cells in ovary or testis will lead to birth deformity as witnessed as an epidemic by the mothers and doctors in Fallujah.
The plans for the evisceration of Libya were long laid by the vultures. The myxoma virus of the blackest of black propaganda is being squirted into the nervous systems of homo non-sapiens to allow many to believe the process is benign. ‘We are aiding revolution and saving Arabs from themselves’. The State Broadcaster leads the mega-wattage and is fed by serried ranks of able liars in the FCO, the Downing Street Media Unit and the Ministry of ‘Defence’. Lying has is now our heavy industry in blood soaked Albion.
The joint statement of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy – “For that transition to succeed, Colonel Ghaddafi must go, and go for good. At that point, the United Nations and its members should help the Libyan people as they rebuild where Ghaddafi has destroyed — to repair homes and hospitals, ….” http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article2986866.ece Did they say rebuild the hospitals and medical services that 12 years of sanctions and Shock and Aweing destroyed in Iraq?
Every evil allegation is heaped on Muamar and his army. Three cluster bombs were used in Misrata. The allegation was backed up by Human Rights Watch but its chief executive, Kenneth Roth, has already shown his partisanship towards the ‘rabbles’. ‘The Security Council has at last lived up to its duty’.
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2011/03/18/security-council-has-last-lived-its-duty Bouckaert, another HRW representative, had given weight to the alleged gang rape of Eman Al-Obeidi. This distressed lady had aired her claim before a room full of foreign journalists. Channel 4 showed the segment two nights running. It would be unusual for such a terrible crime to take place in a nation where 97% are Muslims, and rare also for the victim to shout about it to a crowd. How did Bouckaert come to an opinion on Eman?
As for the three cluster bombs read this by Craig Murray. Our ex-ambassador to Uzbekistan, who ‘outed’ the most grotesque torture of devout Muslims for ‘intelligence’ which flowed to Langley and thence to MI6, records how the US has the largest stocks of cluster bombs and that it has resisted joining the cluster bomb ban. The UK, with its usual treachery, has signed but agrees to hold stocks for the US on this sceptred isle. The use of thousands by ‘Israel’ on the Lebanese people in 2006 is not recalled by the UK media. http://craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2011/04/clusters-of-hypocrisy/
This morning, the funereal sounding Orla Guerin, spoke of one hundred rebel injuries and several deaths. Again the government forces and civilians had no mention. Death and injury is not their lot. She said that they were ‘exhausted by death’ in Misrata. The pilots of the British Typhoons, Tornadoes and French Mirages were not exhausted so by death. Their very accurate ‘fire and forget’ missiles erased only concrete and metal. Thus there are no loyal Libyan deaths.
The State Broadcaster has been very selective in its news dissemination. Aware that our premier liar has promised ‘no boots on the ground’, it has been careful to maintain that illusion. There has been no national news of ‘deployment’. (They are good on sanitary words – ‘ in theatre’, ‘operational tasking’ These are fragments of the public school lexicon of killing.) But here, in the South West of England, BBC Southwest has been spilling the beans. It reckons that almost every local will know warships have been embarking Royal Marines in Plymouth. However, we were told they were going in case ‘humanitarian help’ was needed in Libya and, rather darkly, for the possible evacuation of UK citizens from other Middle Eastern countries in event of disturbance or similar. The video showed troops loading humanitarian rocket launchers. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-12995065
The MoD said the newly-formed Response Force Task Group (RFTG) would be taking part in multi-national amphibious exercises in the Mediterranean and later in the Indian Ocean.
HMS Albion, Type 23 frigate HMS Sutherland, and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Cardigan Bay were sailing as the lead element of the RFTG, which is held at “very high readiness” to respond to “unexpected global events”.
HMS Albion, a landing platform dock capable of carrying more than 600 people, left Devonport just after 0800 BST 14 April. A closer look at Albion at sea -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11491132
Task group commander, Cmdr John Kingwell, said: “Cougar 11 is an important opportunity to develop international inter-operability and build long-term defence relationships, and for the RFTG to demonstrate operational contingent capability.” (We are used to gold braid bullshit.)
The MoD said the ships and troops from Taunton-based 40 Commando would be there “to develop and demonstrate contingent capability for UK defence – in effect, the ability to respond to short-notice tasking across a diverse range of defence activities such as disaster relief, humanitarian aid, or amphibious operations”.
Devonport-based submarine HMS Triumph has just returned to the base after operations against pro-Gaddafi forces. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-12976115
Cdr Rob Dunn said: “I am proud of my ship’s company. They went about their duty and carried out all I asked of them in the most professional way.
“They are naturally satisfied that they carried out an operational tasking using our Tomahawk land attack missiles weapon system, which does not happen very often, but for which they are highly trained and prepared for at any time.”
Whilst ships, men and ammunition were rapidly loaded at Devonport Plymouth, Royal Fleet Auxiliary Largs Bay was loading at Hythe dock in Southampton Water.
The dock is supplied by its own railway so the munitions are kept away from the proles who pay for them. BBC South also kept the public in ignorance of happenings in Hythe. There is only a village nearby, and the oil refinery of course!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFA_Largs_Bay_(L3006)
These benign activities are all to do with Operation Cougar at the perfidious Albion end. They are alleged to have been 2 years in the planning. One function, according to the Ministry of Truth and ‘Defence’, is “preventing conflict.” ‘ These units have now deployed and have been selected for their ability to remain on task for as long as is required.’ “More units will sail to join the lead elements later this year.”
support/operations/auriga/news/cougar_11_vanguard_s.htm
These are all the elementsof the Response Force Task Group:-
Landing Platform Dock (LPD) HMS Ocean Landing Platform Helicopter (LPH) HMS Liverpool Type 42 Destroyer HMS Sutherland Type 23 Frigate HMS Triumph Trafalgar Class Submarine RFA Argus Aviation Training and Casualty Receiving Ship RFA Mounts Bay Landing Platform RFA Cardigan Bay Landing Platform HMS Albion Oil Replenisher RFA Fort Rosalie 40 Cdo Royal Marines539 Assault Squadron Royal MarinesThe Armoured Support Group Two Lynx Mk 9 Helicopters from Joint Helicopter Command Two Sea King Mk4 Helicopters from Joint Helicopter Command One Lynx Helicopter from 815 Naval Air Squadron
The very big supremo of the NATO ‘peace keeping’ and civilian saving force is Canadian Lieutenant-General Charles Bouchard. He has studied ‘defence’ in the US of A and it shows.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13125616
“The head of Nato in Libya, Lieutenant-General Charles Bouchard, said Col Gaddafi’s forces had employed what he called underhand and immoral tactics in their seven-week drive to dislodge the rebels from the city.
‘Inside the city it’s a very difficult tough situation. The Gaddafi forces have taken their uniforms off, they’re hiding on rooftops of mosques, hospitals, schools, that’s where their heavy equipment is positioned, near mosques, near schools, and they’re shielding themselves with women and children.
So when people ask me why aren’t you doing something, well I’m not going to lower to his level. I’m not going to do the kind of warfare that he’s doing. My job’s to help the population,” he said, in an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.”
We can visualise there are at least 50 vessels standing for freedom in the eastern Mediterranean, including at least one USS nuclear powered and nuclear armed aircraft carrier. There will be at least 10 submarines.
The buzzard sees the humans crawling on the earth below and he mews
“What though the spicy breezes blow soft o’er Ceylon’s isle;
Though every prospect pleases, and only man is vile?” Heber
The cuckoo is quiet and sitting tight. But the wires are busy – Bibi to Hillary to ‘I am a Zionist’ Cameron to Sarkozy. Bibi knows of fellow ‘Israeli’ Oded Yinon who in the 80′s studied how the Arab entities might be destabilized and divided into digestible pieces. (See Ralph Schoenman’s ‘The Hidden History of Zionism’ Chapter 12. It is most revealing.) So things are going pretty well.
The actual axis of evil is very busy. One pole, the dominant one, is in Tel Aviv. The other pole is Washington. In the middle is London, and now Paris.
London gives the axis propriety with all the flummery. It also gives its cunning and its historical knowledge of imperialism. The power shifts backward and forward along that axis as busily as those jets carrying the psychopaths who pull the triggers.
Whilst Colonel Mu’ammar al-Qadhafi waits for his high explosive execution, (NATO bombed a bunker in central Tripoli last night) read his long, coherent speech to that sham of shams, the United Nations.
http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=626459 Certainly not a member of that axis of evil.
That UN was formed in some sort of hope after yet another war to end wars. Have Cameron, Sarkozy, Obama and the rest of the murderous gang read this?
“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations…Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter.”
UN Charter – 1: Purposes and Principles
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml
David Halpin is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by David Halpin
.
Libyan Rebels Fighting the Globalists’ War
http://www.infowars.com
Tony Cartalucci
The Land Destroyer Report
April 20, 2011
As the global corporate-financier oligarchs prepare the way rhetorically and logistically to send in the ground troops we were told would never set foot on Libyan soil, in a war that was only to last days, then weeks, but now over a month, the discernment, ambition, and true intentions of the Libyan rebels must be called into question.
After rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi admitted to being trained in Afghanistan and subsequently fighting American troops there, and admitting many of the rebel fighters now joining him in Libya had similarly returned from Afghanistan as well as Iraq, it must strike them as tremendous irony that the same Americans they were filling pine boxes with overseas, are now protecting their lives and handing them an entire country to rule over.
Of course in life, nothing is quite that simple. The rebels seem to forget that just months ago Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi was also the recipient of similarly ironic support from the West. In the end, it appears it was merely a ploy to disarm and infiltrate Qaddafi’s regime ahead of a US funded, armed, and supported militant uprising. The betrayal does not end there, with the militant rebels in tanks and fighter jets, brandishing newly procured weaponry flowing over the Egyptian border with Washington’s full knowledge and in direct violation of UNSC r.1973, the corporate owned media has continuously branded these militants as Libyan “civilians” and Qaddafi’s attempts to restore order in his country as an inhumane “massacre.”
The intent is to fully justify any means necessary to remove Qaddafi from power, and so the rebels think, hand the country and its riches over to the green shoots of democracy led by the valiant Al Qaeda-linked militants that toppled a tyrant. What woeful ignorance.
While the dichotomy of Western politics is merely for public consumption, what each camp states publicly can be put together as a composite giving us a clearer picture of the overall globalist agenda. Neo-Conservative war monger Daniel Pipes, a PNAC signatory, CFR member, and co-conspirator in many of the darkest chapters of recent American history, was recently sharing his “doubts” over the final result of the “Arab Spring.” He believes that ultimately extremists will prevail in many cases and only complicate US relations with certain countries.
Of course, Pipes most likely didn’t miss the memo and is fully aware that the “Arab Spring” is a US funded gambit, one his fellow “Neo-Cons” lining the National Endowment for Democracy and the fraudulent Freedom House are admittedly involved in. At the very least, he must have picked up the New York Times and read as much. So what exactly is Pipes trying to tell us? He is saying that as soon as the Libyan rebels secure Libya, or the Muslim Brotherhood takes hold of Syria, or Yemen, or wins out in a co-opted counterrevolution against International Crisis Group stooge Mohamed ElBaradei in Egypt, the blinders Western propagandists seems to be wearing will suddenly drop and point out that indeed the globalists have installed extremists “by accident.”
To rectify this, Libyan rebels will be betrayed just as quickly as Qaddafi was. They will be removed from power, and replaced by Western stooges protected by NATO ground troops, conveniently already being put on the ground in Libya, and will stay there permanently. The globalist “Neo-Con” think tank Foreign Policy Initiative has stated, “The best way to reduce the potential dangers posed by extremist infiltration is for the United States and its allies to remain engaged in Libya.”
This engagement most likely will take the shape of the other unending “engagements” in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the years of cross-border raids into Pakistan. The oil money that once built water ways, public housing, and farms from Benghazi to Tripoli, will be funneled directly out of the country and into the corporate-financier’s accounts. The corporate-financier oligarchs will have taken yet another nation-state down with the help of its own gullible population, and for their gullibility, they will pay for the rest of their lives, as will their children and their children’s children.
To understand the full scope of the global corporate-financier oligarchy’s designs toward any given nation, we must simply look back at the brazen admissions made over the intended future stemming from the outright military conquest of Iraq and Paul Bremer’s (CFR) planned economic reformation of the broken nation. The Economist enumerates the “economic liberalization” of Iraq in a piece titled “Let’s all go to the yard sale: If it all works out, Iraq will be a capitalist’s dream:”
1. 100% ownership of Iraqi assets.
2. Full repatriation of profits.
3. Equal legal standing with local firms.
4. Foreign banks allowed to operate or buy into local banks.
5. Income and corporate taxes capped at 15%.
6. Universal tariffs slashed to 5%.
Anyone who would willfully make a deal with such people must have their discernment called into question. As Hugo Chavez of Venezuela said of Hosni Mubarak’s decades of appeasing the globalists and his eventual ousting from power at the hands of US funded, trained, and supported protesters, “that’s how the devil pays.” Indeed it is, and it is an instructive lesson for others including the rebels of Benghazi to consider as they attempt to make their own deals with the globalists today.
.
related news .
Gaddafi accuses Al-Qaeda of coordinating uprising
.
The kings and princes: The agents of the West to preach democracy!
|
Bahrain Escapes Censure by West as Crackdown on Protesters Intensifies
http://www.commondreams.org
Published on Tuesday, April 19, 2011 by The Independent/UK
Saudi troops’ demolition of mosques stokes religious tensions
Bahraini government forces backed by Saudi Arabian troops are destroying mosques and places of worship of the Shia majority in the island kingdom in a move likely to exacerbate religious hatred across the Muslim world.
Mourners carry the body of Ali Isa Ibrahim Saqer, who died in police custody. The harshness of the government repression is provoking allegations of hypocrisy against Washington, London and Paris. Their mild response to human rights abuses and the Saudi Arabian armed intervention in Bahrain is in stark contrast to their vocal concern for civilians in Libya. (AP) “So far they have destroyed seven Shia mosques and about 50 religious meeting houses,” said Ali al-Aswad, an MP in the Bahraini parliament.
He said Saudi soldiers, part of the 1,000-strong contingent that entered Bahrain last month, had been seen by witnesses helping demolish Shia mosques and shrines in the Sunni-ruled kingdom.
Mohammed Sadiq, of the Justice for Bahrain organisation, said the most famous of the Shia shrines destroyed was that of a revered Bahraini Shia spiritual leader, Sheikh Abdul Amir al-Jamri, who died in 2006. A photograph taken by activists and seen by The Independent shows the golden dome of the shrine lying on the ground and later being taken away on the back of a lorry. On the walls of Shia mosques that have been desecrated, graffiti has been scrawled praising the Sunni King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa and insulting the Shia.
The attack on Shia places of worship has provoked a furious reaction among the 250 million Shia community, particularly in Iran and Iraq, where Shia are in a majority, and in Lebanon where they are the largest single community.
The Shia were already angry at the ferocious repression by Bahraini security forces of the pro-democracy movement, which had sought to be non-sectarian. After the monarchy had rejected meaningful reform, the wholly Sunni army and security forces started to crush the largely Shia protests on 15 and 16 March.
The harshness of the government repression is provoking allegations of hypocrisy against Washington, London and Paris. Their mild response to human rights abuses and the Saudi Arabian armed intervention in Bahrain is in stark contrast to their vocal concern for civilians in Libya.
The US and Britain have avoided doing anything that would destabilise Saudi Arabia and the Sunni monarchies in the Gulf, to which they are allied. They are worried about Iran taking advantage of the plight of fellow Shia, although there is no evidence that Iran has any role in fomenting protests despite Bahraini government claims to the contrary. The US has a lot to lose because its Fifth Fleet, responsible for the Gulf and the north of the Indian Ocean, is based in Bahrain.
Sunni-Shia hostility in the Muslim world is likely to deepen because of the demolition of Shia holy places in Bahrain. Shia leaders recall that it was the blowing up of the revered Shia shrine of al-Askari in Samarra, Iraq, by al-Qa’ida in 2006 that provoked a sectarian civil war between Sunni and Shia in which tens of thousands died. They see fundamentalist Wahhabi doctrine, upheld by the state in Saudi Arabia, as being behind the latest sectarian assault and attempt to keep the Shia as second-class citizens. Mr Sadiq believes Saudi troops are behind the attacks on mosques and shrines. “What is happening comes from the ideology of Wahhabism which is against shrines,” he said. To the Wahhabi, the Shia are as heretical as Christians. Mr Aswad said soldiers in Saudi uniforms had been seen attending the destruction of Shia religious sites.
Yousif al-Khoei, who heads a Shia charitable foundation, said he could “confirm that reports of desecration of Shia graves, shrines and mosques and hussainiyas [religious meeting houses] in Bahrain are genuine and we are concerned that Saudi troops, who believe that shrines are un-Islamic and are trying to enforce that Wahhabi doctrine on the Shia of Bahrain, will undoubtedly result in heightened sectarian tensions.”
Some 499 people in Bahrain are known to have been detained during the current unrest and many are believed to have been tortured. Four who died in detention this month showed signs of severe abuse and appeared to have been beaten to death.
In the case of Ali Isa Ibrahim Saqer, who had turned himself in to the security forces after threats to detain his family if he did not do so, photographs showed signs of whipping and beating. The Bahraini human rights activist who photographed the body was later detained and accused of faking the picture, but the same injuries were witnessed by the New York-based Human Rights Watch.
There are continuing arbitrary arrests of people who took part in the pro-democracy protests that began on 14 February. Even waving a Bahraini flag is considered an offence, and a doctor who was shown on television shedding tears over the body of a dead protester was detained.
The aim of government repression is evidently to terrorise the Shia and permanently crush the protest movement. Doctors who treated injured demonstrators have been arrested and on 15 April the authorities detained a lawyer, Mohammed al-Tajer, who defended protesters in court. Human Rights Watch says the families of many of those detained have no word on what has happened to them. The authorities do not seem concerned about providing plausible accounts of how detainees died. In the case of Mr Saqer, who was detained on 3 April and whose body was released six days later, the government said he had “created chaos” in the detention centre and had died while the disturbance was being quelled.
Human Rights Watch, which saw his body during the ritual before he was buried in his home village of Sehla on 10 April, said “his body showed signs of severe physical abuse. The left side of his face showed a large patch of bluish skin with a reddish-purple area near his left temple and a two-inch cut to the left of his eye. Lash marks crisscrossed his back, some reaching to his front right side. Blue bruises covered much of the back of his calves, thighs, and buttocks, as well as his right elbow and hip. The tops of his feet were blackened, and lacerations marked his ankles and wrists.”
The fighting in Libya and unrest elsewhere in the Arab world has drawn attention away from Bahrain, and the authorities have also arrested pro-democracy journalists and prevented several foreign journalists entering the country.
Timeline of unrest
14 February Anti-government protests dubbed the “Day of Rage” attract thousands, prompted by demonstrations in Egypt and Tunisia. One person is killed.
15 February Bahrain police open fire on crowds at the dead protester’s funeral. King Hamad attempts to appease the demonstrators, pledging to hold an investigation into the “regrettable” deaths.
26 February The ruling al-Khalifa family makes concessions to Bahrain’s majority Shia population. Hardline Shia dissident Hassan Mushaima is allowed to return from voluntary exile.
3 March First clashes between the Sunnis and Shia Muslim communities since February’s protests.
15 March Martial law is declared one day after Saudi troops enter Bahrain in an attempt to end the unrest. The United Arab Emirates vows to send 500 police.
16 March Bahraini forces arrest six opposition leaders and crack down on protesters.
18 March The geographical focal point of the mainly Shia protests, Pearl Roundabout in Manama, is demolished in an attempt to quash the rebellion. At least seven people die.
3 April Authorities lift a ban on the main opposition newspaper.
4 April Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calls on Saudi Arabia to pull out of Bahrain.
10 April The body of Ali Isa Ibrahim Saqer is buried, seven days after he was taken into custody. His body showed signs of whipping and beating.
13 April A Shia opposition party claims that another protester has died in police custody – the fourth so far.
16 April Tensions rise further with new arrests and the alleged death of a female student.
.
Russia accuses NATO of going beyond UN resolution on Libya
http://rt.com
Published: 17 April, 2011, 10:29
As the operation in Libya closes in on its first month, coalition members are swearing to push further until Colonel Gaddafi goes, despite the UN no-fly zone resolution only allowing NATO involvement to secure humanitarian protection.
The gamesmanship is making many countries increasingly uneasy. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev warned at the beginning of the week that Libya risks total collapse and reiterated Russia’s position that to restore order in the North African country, those parties involved need to be acting in strict accordance with the international resolutions.
Russia and China both have the right of veto when it comes to resolutions of the UN Security Council. Though they have not used this right over the last month they abstained from the vote and have not been participating in the operation.
There have been some concerns as to whether NATO is acting beyond the boundaries of UN Resolution 1973.
“The UN Security Council’s resolution must be fulfilled in accordance with the wording and meaning, not with the free interpretation of some states. Because we voted for a no-fly zone to stop the escalation of the conflict so that we can separate the two sides, but what we are having now is a military operation. It may not be on the ground yet but it is certainly going up above,” President Medvedev stated this week. “A number of countries were taking part and then NATO stepped in. But the resolution does not say a word about it.”
On Friday, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was visiting Berlin for a Russia-NATO conference where Libya was naturally on the agenda. Lavrov reiterated much of what President Medvedev said earlier, clarifying again the Russian stance on the issue and making it clear that it is not the resolution [1973] itself that is the problem, but the way it is being implemented that raises questions.
“Today we witness that some NATO actions in Libya are exceeding the framework defined by the UN Security Council. It is already being discussed that UN Resolution 1973 could also be used for ground operations,” Lavrov declared.
“The resolution does not provide for such actions and does not approve them, nor does the UN deal support regime change in Libya,” admonished the Russian foreign minister.
NATO’s methods in Libya are also prompting questions over how far they could extend the operation.
org Post here
related news :
Libya denies firing cluster bombs
.
What a Strange Way to Protect Civilians: Depleted Uranium and Libya
http://original.antiwar.com
“We are there to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas”
– William Hague
“I was watching ABC News last night and, lo and behold, there was a DU impact. It burned and burned and burned.”
- Doug Rokke, ex-director of the Pentagon’s Depleted Uranium Project commenting on Libya attack.
“Depleted uranium tipped missiles fit the description of a dirty bomb in every way… I would say that it is the perfect weapon for killing lots of people.”
– Marion Falk, chemical physicist (retd), Lawrence Livermore Lab, California, USA
To date depleted uranium’s deathly dust has traveled its horrible route from Iraq (The first Gulf War in 1990/91) to the Balkans (with the NATO attack on Serbia in 1999) to Afghanistan (2001-) and back to Iraq (2003-) Now we have the attack on Libya and I raise the question as to whether DU is being used once again in this latest “war”; whether this “nuclear waste with wings” continues its journey bringing with it short- and long-term death.
In the first 24 hours of the Libyan attack, US B-2s dropped forty-five 2,000-pound bombs. Did any of these massive bombs, along with the Cruise missiles launched from British and French planes and ships, contain depleted uranium? Doug Rokke joins others such as Conn Hallinan, of Foreign Policy in Focus, in believing that the answer is yes.
DU is the waste product from the process of enriching uranium ore. It is used in nuclear weapons and reactors. Because it is a very heavy substance, 1.7 times denser than lead, it is highly valued by the military for its ability to punch through armored vehicles and buildings. When a weapon made with a DU tip strikes a solid object like the side of a tank, it goes straight through it, then erupts in a burning cloud of vapor. The vapor settles as dust, which is not only poisonous, but also radioactive.
An impacting DU missile burns at 10,000 degrees C. When it strikes a target, 30% fragments into shrapnel. The remaining 70% vaporizes into three highly-toxic oxides, including uranium oxide. This black dust remains suspended in the air and, according to wind and weather, can travel over great distances. If you think Iraq and Libya are far away, remember that radiation from Chernobyl reached Wales.
Particles less than 5 microns in diameter are easily inhaled and may remain in the lungs or other organs for years. Internalized DU can cause kidney damage, cancers of the lung and bone, skin disorders, neurocognitive disorders, chromosome damage, immune deficiency syndromes and rare kidney and bowel diseases. Pregnant women exposed to DU may give birth to infants with genetic defects. Once the dust has vaporized, don’t expect the problem to go away soon. As an alpha particle emitter, DU has a half life of 4.5 billion years.
In the “shock and awe” attack on Iraq, more than 1,500 bombs and missiles were dropped on Baghdad. Seymour Hersh has claimed that the US Third Marine Aircraft Wing alone dropped more than “five hundred thousand tons of ordnance.” Much of it DU-tipped.
Al Jazeera reported that invading US forces fired two hundred tons of radioactive material into buildings, homes, streets and gardens of Baghdad. A reporter from the Christian Science Monitor took a Geiger counter to parts of the city that had been subjected to heavy shelling by US troops. He found radiation levels 1,000 to 1,900 times higher than normal in residential areas. With its population of 26 million, the US dropped a one-ton bomb for every 52 Iraqi citizens or 40 pounds of explosives per person.
The tragedy is that we will only know years after the bombing has stopped the extent of short- and long-term damage to the population, as the people of Fallujah in Iraq are now discovering from the horrific consequences of the depleted uranium and white phosphorous weaponry the US used on the city in 2004.
In the first 24 hours of the attack on Libya by the US and its allies £100 million worth of ordnance was used. No doubt much of it destroyed armaments and military installations sold to Libya by the very same countries now doing the bombing. The European Union’s arms control report said member states issued licenses in 2009 for the sale of £293.2 million worth of weapons and weapons systems to Libya. Britain issued arms firms licenses for the sale of £21.7 million worth of weaponry to Libya and were also paid by Colonel Gadhafi to send the SAS to train his 32nd Brigade.
The UK Ministry of Defense and US Department of Defense are careful how they refer to DU and prefer not to answer questions about its use. But in those “official” documents we have been able to view it is clear that DU is commended for its excellent penetrating qualities and we must assume that what is considered of military value is going to be used especially when the political spokespeople for the military are keen to deny that DU has any harmful affects on human beings.
Thus the UK Defense Secretary, Liam Fox, in correspondence with Bill Wilson, a member of the Scottish Parliament in February 2011 said: ”The UK does not support resolutions that presuppose DU is harmful… The Government’s policy remains that DU can be used within weapons; it is not prohibited under current or likely future international agreements. UK armed forces use DU munitions in accordance with international humanitarian law. It would be quite wrong to deny our serving personnel a legitimate capability.”
Liam Fox is repeating the views of earlier UK Defense Secretaries. This is an excerpt from then Defense Secretary, Des Brown’s letter to Tony Benn, dated 21 April 2008: ”In conclusion, our view remains that DU can be legitimately used within weapons and that it would be quite wrong for the UK Government to deny our troops a legitimate capability that provides the best possible protection for them during armed conflicts.”
Note that the letters appear to have been written by the same person!
Since we are being told, when we’re told anything, that DU is not dangerous and is an effective tool for warfare why would they not continue its use? So long as that is the official opinion from the military and the politicians we must take it at face value and force them to confirm that we are mistaken and that DU is no longer used.
I would love to be proved wrong as would, even more so, the people who are under bombardment. But The International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons have stated that: ”The likelihood of DU use in Libya has now increased following the deployment and use of A-10 and Harrier AV-8B aircraft. ICBUW calls for pressure to be brought on the US to clarify the situation, and to put DU ammunition beyond use.”
This is unlikely to happen according to Doug Rokke, who recently told me: ”The DoD/MoD jerks will always deny the use and always deny adverse health effects. That is the standing order. DU is so good against all types of target that they will never give it up.”
Which weapons systems use DU?
The military and the politicians are very shy about the uses of depleted uranium, but here is a list of all platforms using DU, and the rounds themselves.
- A10 aircraft: Of all the US military platforms that fire DU, the A-10 is responsible for the greatest proportion of DU fired.
- AMX-30 Tank:French Main Battle Tank, active from the mid 1960s to the 2000s. From the mid 1990s it was equipped with a 105 mm uranium round. No longer in service in France but widely exported.
- Leclerc Tank: The current French Main Battle Tank. Fires the OFL 120 F2 uranium round. Also adopted by the United Arab Emirates.
- M1/M1A1/M1A2 Abrams Tank: The US Main Battle Tank, and platform for large caliber DU munitions.
- M101 20 mm Davy Crockett Spotting Round: A historical DU round, used by the US to estimate firing trajectory on the Davy Crockett nuclear rifle. No longer in use.
- M1128 Stryker Mobile Gun System: A new US weapons system utilizing old DU rounds and the M68 cannon.
- M2 & M3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle: US Armored personnel carrier, which fires M919 DU rounds with its 25mm cannon.
- M774 105mm APFSDS-T round: US 105 mm Armour Piercing, Fin Stabilized, Discarding Sabot round.
- M829 120mm APFSDS-T round: US Armour Piercing, Fin Stabilized, Discarding Sabot round. Fired from the M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams tanks, the M829 is the largest DU round in the US arsenal.
- M833 105mm APFSDS-T round: US 105mm Armour Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot round, used in the M60 Patton series of tanks, and the M1 Abrams.
- M900 105mm APFSDS-T round: US Armour Piercing, Fin Stabilized, Discarding Sabot Tracer round. Used in the original M1 Abrams tank, also in the M1128 Stryker Mobile Gun System.
- M919 APFSDS 25mm round: US 25mm Armour Piercing, Fin Stabilized, Discarding Sabot 25mm round used in the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.
- OFL 105 F2 APFSDS-T round: French 105 mm Round, used in the AMX-30 tank. No longer thought to be in service in France, but may have been exported.
- OFL 120 F2 APFSDS-T round: French DU round used by the Leclerc Main Battle Tank. First fielded in 1996, and still in active service.
- PGU-14 30mm API round: US 30mm Armour piercing incendiary round used in the A-10 Thunderbolt aircraft.
- PROCIPAC APFSDS-T round: Next generation French 120mm uranium round. Reported to be under development in the early 2000s, but not thought to be produced in large numbers.
Source: http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/i/85.html
.
UN Document Would Give ‘Mother Earth’ Same Rights as Humans
http://www.commondreams.org
Published on Wednesday, April 13, 2011 by Vancouver Sun
UNITED NATIONS — Bolivia will this month table a draft United Nations treaty giving “Mother Earth” the same rights as humans — having just passed a domestic law that does the same for bugs, trees and all other natural things in the South American country.

Bolivia is planning to table a draft United Nations treaty giving “Mother Earth” the same rights as humans. (Photograph by: NASA) The bid aims to have the UN recognize the Earth as a living entity that humans have sought to “dominate and exploit” — to the point that the “well-being and existence of many beings” is now threatened.
The wording may yet evolve, but the general structure is meant to mirror Bolivia’s Law of the Rights of Mother Earth, which Bolivian President Evo Morales enacted in January.
That document speaks of the country’s natural resources as “blessings,” and grants the Earth a series of specific rights that include rights to life, water and clean air; the right to repair livelihoods affected by human activities; and the right to be free from pollution.
It also establishes a Ministry of Mother Earth, and provides the planet with an ombudsman whose job is to hear nature’s complaints as voiced by activist and other groups, including the state.
“If you want to have balance, and you think that the only (entities) who have rights are humans or companies, then how can you reach balance?” Pablo Salon, Bolivia’s ambassador to the UN, told Postmedia News. “But if you recognize that nature too has rights, and (if you provide) legal forms to protect and preserve those rights, then you can achieve balance.”
The application of the law appears destined to pose new challenges for companies operating in the country, which is rich in natural resources, including natural gas and lithium, but remains one of the poorest in Latin America.
But while Salon said his country just seeks to achieve “harmony” with nature, he signalled that mining and other companies may come under greater scrutiny.
“We’re not saying, for example, you cannot eat meat because you know you are going to go against the rights of a cow,” he said. “But when human activity develops at a certain scale that you (cause to) disappear a species, then you are really altering the vital cycles of nature or of Mother Earth. Of course, you need a mine to extract iron or zinc, but there are limits.”
Bolivia is a country with a large indigenous population, whose traditional belief systems took on greater resonance following the election of Morales, Latin America’s first indigenous president.
In a 2008 pamphlet his entourage distributed at the UN as he attended a summit there, 10 “commandments” are set out as Bolivia’s plan to “save the planet” — beginning with the need “to end capitalism.”
Reflecting indigenous traditional beliefs, the proposed global treaty says humans have caused “severe destruction . . . that is offensive to the many faiths, wisdom traditions and indigenous cultures for whom Mother Earth is sacred.”
It also says that “Mother Earth has the right to exist, to persist and to continue the vital cycles, structures, functions and processes that sustain all human beings.”
In indigenous Andean culture, the Earth deity known as Pachamama is the centre of all life, and humans are considered equal to all other entities.
The UN debate begins two days before the UN’s recognition April 22 of the second International Mother Earth Day — another Morales-led initiative.
Canadian activist Maude Barlow is among global environmentalists backing the drive with a book the group will launch in New York during the UN debate: Nature Has Rights.
“It’s going to have huge resonance around the world,” Barlow said of the campaign. “It’s going to start first with these southern countries trying to protect their land and their people from exploitation, but I think it will be grabbed onto by communities in our countries, for example, fighting the tarsands in Alberta.”
Ecuador, which also has a large indigenous population, has enshrined similar aims in its Constitution — but the Bolivian law is said to be “stronger.”
Ecuador is among countries that have already been supportive of the Bolivian initiative, along with Nicaragua, Venezuela, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Antigua and Barbuda.
US Goal to Break Up Libya like Yugoslavia
http://tv.globalresearch.ca
American fighter jets, submarines and missile ships have officially stopped firing at Gaddafi’s troops.
Ever since Washington handed over command of the military operation to the NATO coalition, the US has been slowly winding down its involvement and decreasing the number of its weapons at Libya’s borders.
However, the US has decided to leave some ships in the area for a while, in case NATO troops need some military support. From now on, the participation of the Americans in the operation will only be possible upon the special request of NATO and approval from the Pentagon.
Meanwhile, as what has been dubbed a humanitarian intervention in Libya is gaining pace, political experts around the globe have voiced growing doubts that the military operation in Libya is justified.
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, from the Center for Research on Globalization, who joined RT from Ottawa to discuss the current situation in Libya, calls NATO’s humanitarian effort a simple cover-up.
“There are Russian and Ukrainian nurses testifying that hospitals are being bombed and civilians are being hurt,” he told RT. “So this is not a humanitarian effort, it’s a smokescreen. This is a war of aggression against Libya.”
.
Globalists—Through UN—Force U.S. Into Libyan War
http://www.americanfreepress.net
By James P. Tucker Jr.
The United States, under Bilderberg-Trilateral Commission orders, is now engaged in not two, but three wars in the Middle East where America has no legitimate national interest. But the world’s entrenched international financiers do have a huge interest in war profits, purchased at the cost of soldiers’ blood. These powerful globalists also perceive maverick rulers like Libya’s Muammar Qadaffi as roadblocks in their push for establishing a world regime.
Before the U.S. joined the invasion, Qadaffi sent a personal letter to President Obama in which he reportedly told Obama that Islamic fundamentalists tied to al Qaeda were the primary source of the ongoing political troubles in North Africa—including Libya. Qadaffi challenged Obama: “If you had found them taking over American cities by the force of arms, tell me what you would do?”
This was no “crazy conspiracy theory” coming from the eccentric Libyan strongman alone. Even Secretary of Defense Robert Gates—among other highlevel figures in the American military diplomatic intelligence community—raised concerns (like Qadaffi) about the possibility al Qaeda might be responsible for some of the unrest in Libya and/or that al Qaeda could benefit from the consequences of American intervention.
Qadaffi also sent terse notes to heads of state in France, Britain and to the UN secretary-general, also saying: “You never have the right to intervene in our internal affairs. Who gave you that right? Our country is not your country.”
![]() |
American non-interventionists—who honor the words of President George Washington who cautioned his countrymen not to become involved in the affairs of other nations—find wisdom in Qadaffi’s words, even if they do not like his style of governing. If the United States intervened in every nation where dictators hold sway, Americans would have been at war with the Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China and virtually every nation in Africa, to name but a few.
And while warmongering elements within the pro Israel “neoconservative” network and their congressional allies such as Sens. John McCain (RAriz.) and Joe Lieberman (IConn.) were calling for U.S. military intervention in Libya, even the neoconservative Washington Times, which is fiercely anti-Qadaffi and eager for his ouster, admitted in a front page story that many top retired military leaders were quietly urging the Obama administration to avoid intervention in Libya.
While the globalists were manipulating the United States into war in Libya—which is looking increasingly like it is about to become a classic “quagmire” of the Vietnam-Afghanistan-Iraq mode—two-thirds of Americans among a broad cross section in several polls expressed opposition to the Afghanistan war. In addition, polls show that many Americans believe the U.S. cannot afford another war given the current state of the economic situation and joblessness in the United States.
Nevertheless, Bilderberg-Trilateral Commission power is so strong that these two pro world government groups were able to put America’s fighting men and women into harm’s way, and they did it by having the president seek guidance, not from Congress, but from the world’s governmental body—the UN. As we go to press, the United States is raining bombs down on Libyan cities in another undeclared war.
AFP editor James P. Tucker Jr. is a veteran journalist who spent many years as a member of the “elite” media in Washington. Since 1975 he has won widespread recognition, here and abroad, for his pursuit of on-the-scene stories reporting the intrigues of global power blocs such as the Bilderberg Group. Tucker is the author of Jim Tucker’s Bilderberg Diary: One Man’s 25-Year Battle to Shine the Light on the World Shadow Government. Bound in an attractive full-color softcover and containing 272 pages—loaded with photos, many never published before—the book recounts Tucker’s experiences over the last quarter century at Bilderberg meetings. $25 from AFP. No charge for S&H in U.S.
.
Libyan War And Control Of The Mediterranean
| http://www.voltairenet.org
by Rick Rozoff*
Had Muammar Gaddafi become too pesky for the likes of Nicolas Sarkozy and his Atlanticist partners, by standing in the way of their agenda for the domination of the Mediterranean sea region? France’s direct role in nurturing the rebellion against the Libyan leader is no longer a secret. In this article, Rick Rozoff offers some additional pointers, and analyzes the Libyan war in the context of the advancing transformation of the Mediterranean into NATO’s mare nostrum. |
26 March 2011 From Countries Themes |
A year after assuming the post of president of the French Republic in 2007, and while his nation held the rotating European Union presidency, Nicolas Sarkozy invited the heads of state of the EU’s 27 members and those of 17 non-EU Mediterranean countries to attend a conference in Paris to launch a Mediterranean Union. In the words of Britain’s Daily Telegraph regarding the subsequent summit held for the purpose on July 13, 2008, “Sarkozy’s big idea is to use imperial Rome’s centre of the world as a unifying factor linking 44 countries that are home to 800 million people.” Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, however, announced that his nation would boycott the gathering, denouncing the initiative as one aimed at dividing both Africa and the Arab world, and stating: “We shall have another Roman empire and imperialist design. There are imperialist maps and designs that we have already rolled up. We should not have them again.” [1] The unprecedented summit was held with the intention of “shift[ing] Europe’s strategic focus towards the Middle East, North Africa and the Balkans.” [2]
The Mediterranean Union was renamed the less controversial Union for the Mediterranean and its members include all 44 nations originally invited to join except for Libya. Less than three years later Sarkozy’s Mirage and Rafale warplanes were bombing Libyan government targets, initiating an ongoing war being waged by France, the United States, Britain and what the world news media refer to as an international coalition – 12 members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the emirate of Qatar – to overthrow the Gaddafi government and implant a more pliant replacement. The Mediterranean Sea is the main battle front in the world currently, superseding the Afghanistan-Pakistan war theater, and the empire of the new third millennium – that of the U.S., the world’s sole military superpower in the words of President Barack Obama in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, and its NATO partners – is completing the transformation of the Mediterranean into its mare nostrum. The attack on Libya followed by slightly more than three weeks a move in the parliament of the Eastern Mediterranean island nation of Cyprus to drag that state into NATO’s Partnership for Peace program [3], which if ultimately successful would leave only three of twenty nations (excluding microstate Monaco) on or in the Mediterranean Sea not full members of NATO or beholden to it through partnership entanglements, including those of the Mediterranean Dialogue (Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia): Libya, Lebanon and Syria. NATO membership and partnerships obligate the affected governments to open their countries to the U.S. military. For example, less than a year after becoming independent Montenegro had already joined the Partnership for Peace and was visited by then-commander of U.S. Naval Forces Europe Admiral Harry Ulrich and the submarine tender Emory S. Land in an effort “to provide training and assistance for the Montenegrin Navy and to strengthen the relationship between the two navies.” [4] The next month four NATO warships, including the USS Roosevelt guided missile destroyer, docked in Montenegro’s Tivat harbor. If the current Libyan model is duplicated in Syria as increasingly seems to be the case, and with Lebanon already blockaded by warships from NATO nations since 2006 in what is the prototype for what NATO will soon replicate off the coast of Libya, the Mediterranean Sea will be entirely under the control of NATO and its leading member, the U.S. Cyprus in the only European Union member and indeed the only European nation (except for microstates) that is – for the time being – not a NATO member or partner, and Libya is the only African nation bordering the Mediterranean not a member of NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue partnership program. Libya is also one of only five of Africa’s 54 countries that have not been integrated into, which is to say subordinated to, the new U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM). The others are: Sudan, which is being balkanized as Libya may also soon be. Ivory Coast, now embroiled in what is for all intents a civil war with the West backing the armed groups of Alassane Ouattara against standing president Laurent Gbagbo and under the threat of foreign military intervention, likely by the AFRICOM- and NATO-supported West African Standby Force and possibly with direct Western involvement. [5] Eritrea, which borders Djibouti where some 5,000 U.S. and French troops are based and which was involved in an armed border conflict with its neighbor three years ago in which French military forces intervened on behalf of Djibouti. Zimbabwe, which is among likely candidates for the next U.S.-NATO Operation Odyssey Dawn-type military intervention. The Mediterranean has been history’s most strategically important sea and is the only one whose waves lap the shores of three continents. Control of the sea has been fought over by the Persian, Alexandrian, Carthaginian, Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman, Spanish, British and Napoleonic empires, in part or in whole, and by Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Germany. Since the end of World War Two the major military power in the sea has been the U.S. In 1946 Washington established Naval Forces Mediterranean, which in 1950 became the U.S. Sixth Fleet and has its headquarters in the Mediterranean port city of Naples.
In fact the genesis of the U.S. Navy was the Naval Act of 1794, passed in response to the capture of American merchant vessels off the coast of North Africa. The Mediterranean Squadron (also Station) was created in reaction to the first Barbary War of 1801-1805, also known as the Tripolitan War after what is now northwestern Libya. The U.S. fought its first naval battle outside the Western Hemisphere against Tripolitania in 1801. U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa, also based in Naples, is assigned to the Sixth Fleet and provides forces for both U.S. European Command and U.S. Africa Command. Its commander is Admiral Samuel Locklear III, who is also commander of NATO’s Allied Joint Force Command Naples. He has been coordinating U.S. and NATO air and missile strikes against Libya from USS Mount Whitney, the flagship of the Sixth Fleet, as commander of Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn, the U.S. Africa Command operation in charge of U.S. guided missile destroyers, submarines and stealth bombers conducting attacks inside Libya. Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations (the highest-ranking officer in the U.S. Navy), recently stated that the permanent U.S. military presence in the Mediterranean allowed the Pentagon, which “already was positioned for operations over Libya,” to launch Odyssey Dawn on March 19. “The need, for example in the opening rounds, for the Tomahawk strikes, the shooters were already in place. They were already loaded, and that went off as we expected it would.” “That’s what you get when you have a global Navy that’s forward all the time….We’re there, and when the guns go off, we’re ready to conduct combat operations….” [6] On March 22 General Carter Ham, the new chief of U.S. Africa Command, visited the U.S. air base in Ramstein, Germany and met with British, French and Italian air force leaders to evaluate the bombing campaign in Libya. He praised cooperation with NATO partners before the war began, stating, “You can’t bring 14 different nations together without ever having prepared for this before.” [7] As the AFRICOM commander was in Germany, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was in Egypt to meet with Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, commander in chief of the Egyptian armed forces and chairman of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, to coordinate the campaign against Libya. The Pentagon’s website reported on March 23 that forces attached to AFRICOM’s Task Force Odyssey Dawn had flown 336 air sorties, 108 of them launching strikes and 212 conducted by the U.S. The operations included 162 Tomahawk cruise missile attacks. Admiral Roughead stated that he envisioned “no problem in keeping operations going,” as the Tomahawks will be replaced from the existing inventory of 3,200. Enough to level Libya and still have plenty left over for the next war. [8] The defeat and conquest, directly or by proxy, of Libya would secure a key outpost for the Pentagon and NATO on the Mediterranean Sea. The consolidation of U.S. control over North Africa would have more than just regional repercussions, important as they are. Shortly after the inauguration of U.S. Africa Command, Lin Zhiyuan, deputy director of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Academy of Military Sciences, wrote the following: “By building a dozen forward bases or establishments in Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria and other African nations, the U.S. will gradually establish a network of military bases to cover the entire continent and make essential preparations for docking an aircraft carrier fleet in the region.” “The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) with the U.S. at the head had [in 2006] carried out a large-scale military exercise in Cape Verde, a western African island nation, with the sole purpose of controlling the sea and air corridors of crude oil extracting zones and monitoring how the situation is with oil pipelines operating there.” “[A]frica Command represents a vital, crucial link for the US adjustment of its global military deployment. At present, it is moving the gravity of its forces in Europe eastward and opening new bases in Eastern Europe.” “The present US global military redeployment centers mainly on an ‘arc of instability’ from the Caucasus, Central and Southern Asia down to the Korean Peninsula, and so the African continent is taken as a strong point to prop up the US global strategy. “Therefore, AFRICOM facilitates the United States advancing on the African continent, taking control of the Eurasian continent and proceeding to take the helm of the entire globe.” [9] Far more is at stake in the war with Libya than control of Africa’s largest proven oil reserves and subjugating the last North African nation not yet under the thumb of the U.S. and NATO. Even more than domination of the Mediterranean Sea region.
|
British Intelligence Worked with Al Qaeda to Kill Qaddafi
| http://www.globalresearch.ca
by Gerald A. Perreira
|
|
![]() |
|
|
Global Research, March 25, 2011
|
|
|
Global Breaking News – 2011-03-22
|
|
Using what Libya claims is an invalid and illegal UN resolution as a pretext, a coalition of crusaders, including the U.S., Britain, France and Spain is bombing the North African country with a military might that has not been seen since the Gulf war.
The real and illegal goal of what is called Operation Odyssey Dawn, is regime change. Replaying the nightmarish Gulf war scenario, the plan is clear: to disable Libya’s defense ability, and to arm and strengthen the reactionary conglomerate of rebel forces in Benghazi, in the hope that this rag tag bunch will roll back, once and for all, the Libyan revolution.
This is not the first attempt by the former slave-holding and colonial powers to lynch Qaddafi and bring Libya to its knees. In 1986, the US falsely accused Libya of bombing a discotheque in Berlin. President Ronald Reagan attempted to assassinate Qaddafi by bombing his residence at Bab al-Azizia in Tripoli. Qaddafi’s daughter and over one hundred Libyans were killed. Next, Libya was falsely accused of the 1988 Pan Am Lockerbie bombing as an excuse for initiating sanctions, in order to economically cripple the country.
In 1996, British intelligence employed the services of an al Qaeda cell inside Libya, paying them a huge fee, reportedly over $100,000, to assassinate Muammar Qaddafi. A bomb, intended for Qaddafi, was detonated under the wrong car in his hometown, Sirte. Several civilians were killed.
Former MI5 operative, David Shayler, revealed that while he was working on the Libya desk in the mid-1990s, British secret service personnel collaborated with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group(LIFG), which is connected to one of Osama bin Laden’s trusted lieutenants. LIFG is now considered a terrorist group in the United Kingdom.
Muammar Qaddafi and the Libyan revolutionary forces were the first to issue an arrest warrant for Osama bin Laden. The Libyan government spent years warning the world about the very serious threat posed by these Islamic deviants. According to Shayler, western intelligence turned a deaf ear to Libya’s warnings because they were actually working with the al Qaeda group inside Libya to bring down Qaddafi and the Libyan revolution.
Anas al Liby is a member of the Libyan al-Qaeda cell. He remains on the U.S. government’s most wanted list, with a reward of $5 million for his capture, and is wanted for his involvement in the U.S. African embassy bombings. Al Liby was with bin Laden in Sudan before the al Qaeda leader returned to Afghanistan in 1996. Surprisingly, correction, not so surprisingly, despite being a high-level al Qaeda operative, al Liby was granted political asylum in Britain and lived in Manchester until May of 2000.
The claims by Qaddafi and the Libyan revolutionary forces that the rebels in Benghazi are inspired by al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and the serious threat this poses, not only to Libya but to the entire region, are once again falling on deaf ears. Why? Because British intelligence forces, among others, are clearly in collaboration with the rebels in Benghazi – those referred to all over Libya as the “bearded ones” – who have close ties to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.
The evidence for this is overwhelming. The British have a long-standing relationship with the al Qaeda affiliated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, based inside Libya. The British also have an historical relationship with the Wahhabi/Salafi brand of Islam, espoused today by Ikhwan al Muslimeen (Muslim Brotherhood) and their offshoots, including al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.
In 1744, an alliance was formed between the founder of Wahhabism, Muhammad ibn Abdal-Wahhab and the ruthless tribal leader, Muhammad ibn Saud, whose descendants rule Saudi Arabia up to today. This reactionary brand of Islam was the perfect theological foundation for the colonial creation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and Wahhabism remains the official Islamic tendency in Saudi Arabia to this day.
In 1915, the British entered into a treaty with the House of Saud, protecting their lands and supplying them with weaponry, as part of the colonial project to establish the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. At the same time, the British did everything they could to help the Wahhabist doctrine to flourish, recognizing it as the perfect ideological tool to further their imperialist objectives. Some scholars have argued that the British actually helped to create Wahhabism.
Today, the British are calling on the descendants of Muhammad ibn Saud, the current Saudi regime, and their present day army of Wahhabis in the form of al Qaeda, to join in a medieval crusade to crush a bastion of revolutionary Islam, which is present day Libya. And the contradictions verify this. We have to wonder why a Saudi government official can say on BBC that “to allow the people to choose their own government is a very bad thing”, and why, with all the Western outcry about women’s rights in the Muslim world, the Saudi regime, which does not even allow women to vote or drive, is never challenged. Instead, they are the ones that the Americans, British, and French are calling on to join them in the destruction of Libya which has liberated women and struggled to bring real democracy to its people.
As early as the mid-19th century, Wahhabi fundamentalism was imported into Benghazi by the reactionary and feudal Senussi fraternity. The influence of this tendency has been passed on from generation to generation, and Benghazi has been the center for those who have consistently opposed liberation Islam articulated by Qaddafi and implemented by the Libyan revolution.
The Muslims of Benghazi, who embrace the same ideology as al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb(AQIM), have been reinvigorated in the last few years by AQIM’s presence on Libya’s borders. There is a renewed interest in the possibility of achieving the stated goal of AQIM, which is the establishment of a Wahhabi Islamic Emirate in the Maghreb, stretching over the entire North African region. When we understand the history of this region, we realize why the former slave-holding and colonial powers have not gone out of their way to find Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri, and how and why these reactionary forces and doctrines are being encouraged.
Gerald A. Perreira lived in Libya for many years. He served in the Green March, an international battalion for the defense of the Libyan revolution and was an executive member of the World Mathaba, based in Tripoli.
Global Research Articles by Gerald A. Perreira
.
The Pentagon and murder in Bahrain
related Update :
ALERT!!!!! BLOODBATH PREPARED IN BAHRAIN TOMORROW ,click here
Comment : AND WHERE IS THE UN AND NATO ?
…………………………………………………………org. Post starts here :
from : http://www.voltairenet.org
How the tiny kingdom of Bahrain strong-armed the President of the United States
| by Nick Turse*
U.S. Defense Departments documents, scrutinized by TomDispatch, reveal that as far back as the 1990s the United States has been supplying vast quantities of military equipment to Bahraini security forces, which have currently unleashed a bloody repression against peaceful mass demonstrations demanding an end to the corrupt Al-Khalifa dynasty. |
24 March 2011 All the versions of this article: |
The men walking down the street looked ordinary enough. Ordinary, at least, for these days of tumult and protest in the Middle East. They wore sneakers and jeans and long-sleeved T-shirts. Some waved the national flag. Many held their hands up high. Some flashed peace signs. A number were chanting, “Peaceful, peaceful.” Up ahead, video footage shows, armored personnel carriers sat in the street waiting. In a deadly raid the previous day, security forces had cleared pro-democracy protesters from the Pearl Roundabout in Bahrain’s capital, Manama. This evening, the men were headed back to make their voices heard. The unmistakable crack-crack-crack of gunfire then erupted, and most of the men scattered. Most, but not all. Video footage shows three who never made it off the blacktop. One in an aqua shirt and dark track pants was unmistakably shot in the head. In the time it takes for the camera to pan from his body to the armored vehicles and back, he’s visibly lost a large amount of blood. Human Rights Watch would later report that Redha Bu Hameed died of a gunshot wound to the head. Bahrein’s king’s army massacre of unarmed peacefull protestors That incident, which occurred on February 18th, was one of a series of violent actions by Bahrain’s security forces that left seven dead and more than 200 injured last month. Reports noted that peaceful protesters had been hit not only by rubber bullets and shotgun pellets, but — as in the case of Bu Hameed — by live rounds. The bullet that took Bu Hameed’s life may have been paid for by U.S. taxpayers and given to the Bahrain Defense Force by the U.S. military. The relationship represented by that bullet (or so many others like it) between Bahrain, a tiny country of mostly Shia Muslim citizens ruled by a Sunni king, and the Pentagon has recently proven more powerful than American democratic ideals, more powerful even than the president of the United States. Just how American bullets make their way into Bahraini guns, into weapons used by troops suppressing pro-democracy protesters, opens a wider window into the shadowy relationships between the Pentagon and a number of autocratic states in the Arab world. Look closely and outlines emerge of the ways in which the Pentagon and those oil-rich nations have pressured the White House to help subvert the popular democratic will sweeping across the greater Middle East. Bullets and Blackhawks A TomDispatch analysis of Defense Department documents indicates that, since the 1990s, the United States has transferred large quantities of military materiel, ranging from trucks and aircraft to machine-gun parts and millions of rounds of live ammunition, to Bahrain’s security forces. According to data from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, the branch of the government that coordinates sales and transfers of military equipment to allies, the U.S. has sent Bahrain dozens of “excess” American tanks, armored personnel carriers, and helicopter gunships. The U.S. has also given the Bahrain Defense Force thousands of .38 caliber pistols and millions of rounds of ammunition, from large-caliber cannon shells to bullets for handguns. To take one example, the U.S. supplied Bahrain with enough .50 caliber rounds — used in sniper rifles and machine guns — to kill every Bahraini in the kingdom four times over. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency did not respond to repeated requests for information and clarification. In addition to all these gifts of weaponry, ammunition, and fighting vehicles, the Pentagon in coordination with the State Department oversaw Bahrain’s purchase of more than $386 million in defense items and services from 2007 to 2009, the last three years on record. These deals included the purchase of a wide range of items from vehicles to weapons systems. Just this past summer, to cite one example, the Pentagon announced a multimillion-dollar contract with Sikorsky Aircraft to customize nine Black Hawk helicopters for Bahrain’s Defense Force. About Face On February 14th, reacting to a growing protest movement with violence, Bahrain’s security forces killed one demonstrator and wounded 25 others. In the days of continued unrest that followed, reports reached the White House that Bahraini troops had fired on pro-democracy protesters from helicopters. (Bahraini officials responded that witnesses had mistaken a telephoto lens on a camera for a weapon.) Bahrain’s army also reportedly opened fire on ambulances that came to tend to the wounded and mourners who had dropped to their knees to pray. “We call on restraint from the government,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in the wake of Bahrain’s crackdown. “We urge a return to a process that will result in real, meaningful changes for the people there.” President Obama was even more forceful in remarks addressing state violence in Bahrain, Libya, and Yemen: “The United States condemns the use of violence by governments against peaceful protesters in those countries, and wherever else it may occur.” Word then emerged that, under the provisions of a law known as the Leahy Amendment, the administration was actively reviewing whether military aid to various units or branches of Bahrain’s security forces should be cut off due to human-rights violations. “There’s evidence now that abuses have occurred,” a senior congressional aide told the Wall Street Journal in response to video footage of police and military violence in Bahrain. “The question is specifically which units committed those abuses and whether or not any of our assistance was used by them.” In the weeks since, Washington has markedly softened its tone. According to a recent report by Julian Barnes and Adam Entous in the Wall Street Journal, this resulted from a lobbying campaign directed at top officials at the Pentagon and the less powerful State Department by emissaries of Bahraini King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa and his allies in the Middle East. In the end, the Arab lobby ensured that, when it came to Bahrain, the White House wouldn’t support “regime change,” as in Egypt or Tunisia, but a strategy of theoretical future reform some diplomats are now calling “regime alteration.” The six member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council include (in addition to Bahrain) Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, all of which have extensive ties to the Pentagon. The organization reportedly strong-armed the White House by playing on fears that Iran might benefit if Bahrain embraced democracy and that, as a result, the entire region might become destabilized in ways inimical to U.S. power-projection policies. “Starting with Bahrain, the administration has moved a few notches toward emphasizing stability over majority rule,” according to a U.S. official quoted by the Journal. “Everybody realized that Bahrain was just too important to fail.” It’s an oddly familiar phrase, so close to “too big to fail,” last used before the government bailed out the giant insurance firm AIG and major financial firms like Citigroup after the global economic meltdown of 2008. Bahrain is, of course, a small island in the Persian Gulf, but it is also the home of the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet, which the Pentagon counts as a crucial asset in the region. It is widely considered a stand-in for neighboring Saudi Arabia, America’s gas station in the Gulf, and for Washington, a nation much too important ever to fail. The Pentagon’s relationship with the Gulf Cooperation Council countries has been cemented in several key ways seldom emphasized in American reporting on the region. Military aid is one key factor. Bahrain alone took home $20 million in U.S. military assistance last year. In an allied area, there is the rarely discussed triangular marriage between defense contractors, the Gulf states, and the Pentagon. The six Gulf nations (along with regional partner Jordan) are set to spend $70 billion on weaponry and equipment this year, and as much as $80 billion per year by 2015. As the Pentagon looks for ways to shore up the financial viability of weapons makers in tough economic times, the deep pockets of the Gulf States have taken on special importance. Beginning last October, the Pentagon started secretly lobbying financial analysts and large institutional investors, talking up weapons makers and other military contractors it buys from to bolster their long-term financial viability in the face of a possible future drop in Defense Department spending. The Gulf States represent another avenue toward the same goal. It’s often said that the Pentagon is a “monopsony,” the only buyer in town for its many giant contractors, but that isn’t entirely true. The Pentagon is also the sole conduit through which its Arab partners in the Gulf can buy the most advanced weaponry on Earth. By acting as a go-between, the Pentagon can ensure that the weapons manufacturers it relies on will be financially sound well into the future. A $60 billion deal with Saudi Arabia this past fall, for example, ensured that Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, and other mega-defense contractors would remain healthy and profitable even if Pentagon spending goes slack or begins to shrink in the years to come. Pentagon reliance on Gulf money, however, has a price. It couldn’t have taken the Arab lobby long to explain how quickly their spending spree might come to an end if a cascade of revolutions suddenly turned the region democratic. An even more significant aspect of the relationship between the Gulf states and the Department of Defense is the Pentagon’s shadowy archipelago of bases across the Middle East. While the Pentagon hides or downplays the existence of many of them, and while Gulf countries often conceal their existence from their own populations as much as possible, the U.S. military maintains sites in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, and of course Bahrain — homeport for the Fifth Fleet, whose 30 ships, including two aircraft carriers, patrol the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea, and the Red Sea. Doughnuts Not Democracy Last week, peaceful protesters aligned against Bahrain’s monarchy gathered outside the U.S. embassy in Manama carrying signs reading “Stop Supporting Dictators,” “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death,” and “The People Want Democracy.” Many of them were women. Ludovic Hood, a U.S. embassy official, reportedly brought a box of doughnuts out to the protesters. “These sweets are a good gesture, but we hope it is translated into practical actions,” said Mohammed Hassan, who wore the white turban of a cleric. Zeinab al-Khawaja, a protest leader, told Al Jazeera that she hoped the U.S. wouldn’t be drawn into Bahrain’s uprising. “We want America not to get involved, we can overthrow this regime,” she said. The United States is, however, already deeply involved. To one side it’s given a box of doughnuts; to the other, helicopter gunships, armored personnel carriers, and millions of bullets — equipment that played a significant role in the recent violent crackdowns. In the midst of the violence, Human Rights Watch called upon the United States and other international donors to immediately suspend military assistance to Bahrain. The British government announced that it had begun a review of its military exports, while France suspended exports of any military equipment to the kingdom. Though the Obama administration, too, has begun a review, money talks as loudly in foreign policy as it does in domestic politics. The lobbying campaign by the Pentagon and its Middle Eastern partners is likely to sideline any serious move toward an arms export cut-off, leaving the U.S. once again in familiar territory — supporting an anti-democratic ruler against his people. “Without revisiting all the events over the last three weeks, I think history will end up recording that at every juncture in the situation in Egypt that we were on the right side of history,” President Obama explained after the fall of Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak — an overstatement, to say the least, given the administration’s mixed messages until Mubarak’s departure was a fait accompli. But when it comes to Bahrain, even such half-hearted support for change seems increasingly out of bounds.
Last year, the U.S. Navy and the government of Bahrain hosted a groundbreaking ceremony for a construction project slated to develop 70 acres of prime waterfront property in Manama. Scheduled for completion in 2015, the complex is slated to include new port facilities, barracks for troops, administrative buildings, a dining facility, and a recreation center, among other amenities, at a price tag of $580 million. “The investment in the waterfront construction project will provide a better quality of life for our Sailors and coalition partners, well into the future,” said Lieutenant Commander Keith Benson of the Navy’s Bahrain contingent at the time. “This project signifies a continuing relationship and the trust, friendship and camaraderie that exists between the U.S. and Bahraini naval forces.” As it happens, that type of “camaraderie” seems to be more powerful than the President of the United States’ commitment to support peaceful, democratic change in the oil-rich region. After Mubarak’s ouster, Obama noted that “it was the moral force of nonviolence, not terrorism, not mindless killing, but nonviolence, moral force, that bent the arc of history toward justice once more.” The Pentagon, according to the Wall Street Journal, has joined the effort to bend the arc of history in a different direction — against Bahrain’s pro-democracy protesters. Its cozy relationships with arms dealers and autocratic Arab states, cemented by big defense contracts and shadowy military bases, explain why. White House officials claim that their support for Bahrain’s monarchy isn’t unconditional and that they expect rapid progress on real reforms. What that means, however, is evidently up to the Pentagon. It’s notable that late last week one top U.S. official traveled to Bahrain. He wasn’t a diplomat. And he didn’t meet with the opposition. (Not even for a doughnut-drop photo op.) Secretary of Defense Robert Gates arrived for talks with King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa and Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa to convey, said Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell, “reassurance of our support.” “I’m convinced that they both are serious about real reform and about moving forward,” Gates said afterward. At the same time, he raised the specter of Iran. While granting that the regime there had yet to foment protests across the region, Gates asserted, “there is clear evidence that as the process is protracted — particularly in Bahrain — that the Iranians are looking for ways to exploit it and create problems.” The Secretary of Defense expressed sympathy for Bahrain’s rulers being “between a rock and hard place” and other officials have asserted that the aspirations of the pro-democracy protesters in the street were inhibiting substantive talks with more moderate opposition groups. “I think what the government needs is for everybody to take a deep breath and provide a little space for this dialogue to go forward,” he said. In the end, he told reporters, U.S. prospects for continued military basing in Bahrain were solid. “I don’t see any evidence that our presence will be affected in the near- or middle-term,” Gates added. In the immediate wake of Gates’ visit, the Gulf Cooperation Council has conspicuously sent a contingent of Saudi troops into Bahrain to help put down the protests. Cowed by the Pentagon and its partners in the Arab lobby, the Obama administration has seemingly cast its lot with Bahrain’s anti-democratic forces and left little ambiguity as to which side of history it’s actually on.
Attached documents
|
Council of European Union : conclusions on Libya
http://www.voltairenet.org
21 March 2011 From Countries |
The Council adopted the following conclusions : “1. The Council expresses its concern at the present situation in Libya and condemns the gross and systematic violation of human rights, violence and brutal repression perpetrated by the regime against the Libyan people. It recalls the UNSC decision to refer these issues to the ICC. It confirms that the EU’s main aim is the protection of the civilian population and support for the possibility for the Libyan people to realise their aspirations for a democratic society. To this end Colonel Gaddafi has to relinquish power immediately. 2. The Council expresses its satisfaction after the adoption of UNSCR 1973 and underlines its determination to contribute to its implementation. It also welcomes the Paris Summit as a decisive contribution to its implementation. While contributing in a differentiated way, the EU and its Member States are determined to act collectively and resolutely, with all international partners, particularly the Arab League and other regional stakeholders, to give full effect to these decisions. 3. The Council has adopted today additional further restrictive measures against the Libyan leadership in the form of additional autonomous designations of person and entities with a view to preventing further funding of the regime. On the basis of the UNSC Resolution, the Council is working on the further strengthening of the measures with a view to their adoption ahead of the European Council on 24/25 March 2011. 4. The Council and the EU Member States will support actions provided for by UNSCR 1973 necessary to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack. It notes that the EU will continue to provide humanitarian assistance to all those affected. The EU recalls its readiness to help Libya build a constitutional state and develop the rule of law. 5. The EU is ready to provide CSDP support to humanitarian assistance in response to a request from OCHA and under the coordinating role of the UN. Such actions will fully respect the UN guidelines on the use of military and civil defence assets (MCDA). 6. The Council asks the High Representative to develop further planning in accordance with UNSC Resolution 1973 and the European Council Declaration of 11 March 2011, on support for humanitarian assistance/civil protection operations including by maritime means for this purpose. This should be in close co-ordination and complementarity with the UN, NATO and others. As part of this process, the Council invites the High Representative to continue contacts with the UN Secretary General and countries of the region, including Egypt and Tunisia. This process should be undertaken as a matter of urgency in order to allow further consideration by the Council by the end of the week. It took note of the offer by Italy to provide OHQ. 7. The EU and the Member States underline once more their solidarity as regards those Member States most directly concerned by migratory movements and reiterate their readiness to provide the necessary support as the situation evolves, in line with the European Council declaration.” . |
The Invasion of Bahrain
| http://www.voltairenet.org
by Craig Murray*
In the Western press, the Saudi invasion of Bahrain is politely called a “troop movement” or an “arrival” – and the reaction from Washington and other Western capitals is similarly muted, even as pro-democracy demonstrators from the Shiite majority are getting slaughtered. In this essay – published one day before the adoption of UNSC resolution 1973 against Libya – former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray comments on the double standards being applied to rebellions in the Arab world. |
18 March 2011 From Countries |
The hideous King of Bahrain has called in troops from Saudi Arabia, UAE and Kuwait to attack pro-democracy protesters in Bahrain. Can you imagine the outrage if Libya’s strongman Muammar Gaddafi called in the armies of Chad. Mali and Burkina Faso to attack the rebels in Benghazi? But do you think that those in power in the West, who rightly condemn Gaddafi’s apparent use of foreign mercenaries, will condemn this use of foreign military power by oil sheiks to crush majority protesters in Bahrain? Of course they won’t. A senior diplomat in a Western mission to the United Nations in New York, who I have known over ten years and trust, has told me for sure that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton agreed to the cross-border use of troops to crush democracy in the Gulf, as a quid pro quo for the Arab League calling for Western intervention in Libya. We also had the Murdoch family’s Sky News rationalizing the Saudi invasion of Bahrain by telling us that the Gulf Cooperation Council has a military alliance agreement under which a state can call in help if attacked. But that does not mean attacked by its own, incidentally unarmed, people. NATO is a military alliance. It does not mean British Prime Minister David Cameron could call in U.S. troops to gun down tuition-fee protesters in Parliament Square. But this dreadful outrage by the Arab sheikhs will be swallowed silently by the West because they are “our” bastards, they host “our” troops; they buy “our” weapons — and they sell “us” oil. I do hope this latest development will open the eyes of those duped into supporting Western intervention in Libya, who believe that those who control the Western armies are motivated by humanitarian concerns. Bahrain already had foreign forces in it – notably the U.S. Fifth Fleet. Do you think that Secretary Clinton and President Barack Obama will threaten to intervene on behalf of pro-democracy demonstrators if armies from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf sheikdoms are let loose on them? I don’t think so. Whether the military invasion of Bahrain will have any effect on the railroading of public opinion behind military intervention in Libya remains to be seen. I will be fascinated to hear, for example, whether Menzies Campbell and Phillippe Sands, who wrote an op-ed for The Guardian entitled “Our Duty To Protect The Libyan People,” also believe the West has a duty to pro-democracy demonstrators in Bahrain – to protect them from attacks by the military forces of the king and his foreign allies. We know from Iraq and Afghanistan, Serbia, Lebanon and Gaza that the “collateral damage” from the initial bombing of Libyan air defenses would kill more people than are dying already in the terrible situation in Libya. While a no-fly zone would bolster rebel morale, most of the actual damage rebels are sustaining is from heavy artillery; so, without a no-tank, no-artillery and no-gunboat zone, a no-fly zone will not in itself tip the military balance. It appears that getting rid of Gaddafi may be a longer slog than the West would like, but an attempt at a quick fix will lead to another Iraq and give Gaddafi an undeserved patriotic mantle. It was former UK Ambassador to Libya, Oliver Miles, who said Western military intervention in Libya should be avoided above all because of the law of unintended consequences. One consequence has happened already, unintended by the liberals who fell in behind the calls for military attacks on Gaddafi. That campaign created cover for the foreign military suppression of democracy in Bahrain. For Clinton and Obama, it is a win-win: advancing U.S. foreign policy both on Libya, where Gaddafi has been a longtime American nemesis, and on the oil-rich Gulf, where democracy is still viewed as a threat to stability. People of good heart should weep.
|
US veto in UN led to 60% increase in settlement activity
http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk
Tuesday, 08 March 2011 12:55
America’s use of its veto in the UN Security Council last month has led to a rise in the rate of settlement construction.
A Palestinian specialist in settlement affairs has claimed that America’s use of its veto in the UN Security Council last month has led to a rise in the rate of settlement construction in the occupied Palestinian territories. It has, said Abdul Hadi Hantash, increased by more than 60%.
“The US veto gave a green light to the Israelis to push ahead with their illegal settlement policy and to escalate the attacks by Jewish settlers against Palestinians and their property,” he added.
According to Mr. Hantash, America’s use of the veto in a Security Council vote on Israel for the first time under President Obama has become “the basic support for Israel to impose new settlement facts on the grounds”. He pointed out that the settlers do not bear sole responsibility for the escalation; the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu must be blamed as well, because of its systematic coordination between the settlers and the occupation forces to raise the pace of settlement activities.
The Central Bureau of Statistic in Tel Aviv issued official data stating that since the partial settlement freeze came to an end nearly five months ago, the pace of settlement construction in the West Bank increased four times compared to the period of the supposed halt in such activity.
.
Somalia: “pirates” or struggling fishermen?
| http://www.voltairenet.org
by Jeffrey St. Clair While the media has focused attention on the plight of the hostages, a look at the living conditions of the Somali “pirates” quickly reveals that they are pre-eminently fishermen struggling against the plundering of their coastal waters and the dumping of toxic wastes by Western countries. According to this article listed in the Censured Project ’Top 25 of 2010’, “piracy” is not the only aspect of the impact wrought by the continuing political chaos in Somalia. Even the UN has long neglected its obligations under the treaty on hazardous wastes. |
18 February 2011 From Countries NGO Themes |
The international community has come out in force to condemn and declare war on the Somali fishermen pirates, while discreetly protecting the illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fleets from around the world that have been poaching and dumping toxic waste in Somali waters since the fall of the Somali government eighteen years ago. In 1991, when the government of Somalia collapsed, foreign interests seized the opportunity to begin looting the country’s food supply and using the country’s unguarded waters as a dumping ground for nuclear and other toxic waste. According to the High Seas Task Force (HSTF), there were over 800 IUU fishing vessels in Somali waters at one time in 2005, taking advantage of Somalia’s inability to police and control its own waters and fishing grounds. The IUUs poach an estimated $450 million in seafood from Somali waters annually. In so doing, they steal an invaluable protein source from some of the world’s poorest people and ruin the livelihoods of legitimate fishermen. Allegations of the dumping of toxic waste, as well as illegal fishing, have circulated since the early 1990s, but hard evidence emerged when the tsunami of 2004 hit the country. [1] The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) reported that the tsunami washed rusting containers of toxic waste onto the shores of Puntland, northern Somalia. Nick Nuttall, a UNEP spokesman, told Al Jazeera that when the barrels were smashed open by the force of the waves, the containers exposed a “frightening activity” that had been going on for more than a decade. “Somalia has been used as a dumping ground for hazardous waste starting in the early 1990s, and continuing through the civil war there,” he said. “The waste is many different kinds. There is uranium radioactive waste. There is lead, and heavy metals like cadmium and mercury. There is also industrial waste, and there are hospital wastes, chemical wastes—you name it.” Nuttall also said that since the containers came ashore, hundreds of residents have fallen ill, suffering from mouth and abdominal bleeding, skin infections and other ailments. “What is most alarming here is that nuclear waste is being dumped. Radioactive uranium waste that is potentially killing Somalis and completely destroying the ocean,” he said. Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, the UN envoy for Somalia, says the practice helps fuel the eighteen-year-old civil war in Somalia, as companies pay Somali government ministers and/or militia leaders to dump their waste. “There is no government control . . . and there are few people with high moral ground . . . yes, people in high positions are being paid off, but because of the fragility of the Transitional Federal Government, some of these companies now no longer ask the authorities—they simply dump their waste and leave.” In 1992 the countries of the European Union and 168 other countries signed the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal. The convention prohibits waste trade between countries that have signed, as well as countries that have not signed the accord, unless a bilateral agreement had been negotiated. It also prohibits the shipping of hazardous waste to a war zone. Surprisingly, the UN has disregarded its own findings, and has ignored Somali and international appeals to act on the continued ravaging of the Somali marine resources and dumping of toxic wastes. Violations have also been largely ignored by the region’s maritime authorities.
Documentary on the nuclear waste (uranium) and other hazardous wastes that industrialised countries dump in Somalia. This is the context from which the men we are calling “pirates” have emerged.Everyone agrees they were ordinary Somali fishermen who, at first, took speedboats to try to dissuade the dumpers and trawlers, or at least wage a “tax” on them. They call themselves the Volunteer Coast Guard of Somalia. One of the pirate leaders, Sugule Ali, explains that their motive is “to stop illegal fishing and dumping in our waters. . . . We don’t consider ourselves sea bandits. We consider sea bandits [to be] those who illegally fish, and dump waste, and carry weapons in our seas.” Author Johann Hari noted in the Huffington Post that, while none of this makes hostage-taking justifiable, the “pirates” have the overwhelming support of the local population for a reason. The independent Somalia news site WardherNews [2] conducted the best research we have on what ordinary Somalis are thinking. It found that 70 percent “strongly support the piracy as a form of national defense of the country’s territorial waters.” [3] Instead of taking action to protect the people and waters of Somalia from international transgressions, the UN has responded to the situation by passing aggressive resolutions that entitle and encourage transgressors to wage war on the Somali pirates. A chorus of calls for tougher international action has resulted in multi-national and unilateral Naval stampede to invade and take control of the Somali waters. The UN Security Council (a number of whose members may have ulterior motives to indirectly protect their illegal fishing fleets in the Somali Seas) passed Resolutions 1816 in June 2008, and 1838 in October 2008, which “call upon States interested in the security of maritime activities to take part actively in the fight against piracy on the high seas off the coast of Somalia, in particular by deploying naval vessels and military aircraft . . .” Both NATO and the EU have issued orders to the same effect. Russia, Japan, India, Malaysia, Egypt, and Yemen, along with an increasing number of countries have joined the fray. For years, attempts made to address piracy in the world’s seas through UN resolutions have failed to pass, largely because member nations felt such resolutions would infringe on their sovereignty and security. Countries are unwilling to give up control and patrol of their own waters. UN Resolutions 1816 and 1838, to which a number of West African, Caribbean and South American nations objected, were accordingly tailored to apply to Somalia only. Somalia has no representation at the United Nations strong enough to demand amendments to protect its sovereignty, and Somali civil society objections to the Draft Resolutions—which makes no mention of illegal fishing or hazard waste dumping—were ignored. Hari asks, “Do we expect starving Somalians to stand passively on their beaches, paddling in our nuclear waste, and watch us snatch their fish to eat in restaurants in London and Paris and Rome? We didn’t act on those crimes—but when some of the fishermen responded by disrupting the transit-corridor for 20 percent of the world’s oil supply, we begin to shriek about “evil.” If we really want to deal with piracy, we need to stop its root cause—our crimes —before we send in the gun-boats to root out Somalia’s criminals.” Update by Mohamed Abshir Waldo (of WardheerNews)The crises of the multiple piracies in Somalia have not diminished since my previous article, “The Two Piracies in Somalia: Why the Word Ignores the Other,” was written in December 2008. [4] All the illegal fishing piracy, the waste dumping piracy and the shipping piracy continue with new zeal. Somali fishermen, turned pirates in reaction to armed foreign marine poachers, have intensified their war against all kinds of ships in the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean. On international response, foreign governments, international organizations and mainstream media have been united in demonizing Somalia and described its fishermen as evil men pillaging ships and terrorizing sailors (even though no sailors were harmed). This presentation is lopsided. The media said relatively little on the other piracies of illegal fishing and waste dumping. The allied navies of the world—fleets of over forty warships from over ten Asian, Arab, and African countries as well as from many NATO and EU member countries—stepped up their hunt for the Somali fishermen pirates, regardless of whether they are actually engaged in piracy or in normal fishing in the Somali waters. Various meetings of the International Contact Group for Somalia (ICGS) in New York, London, Cairo, and Rome continue to underline the demonization of the Somali fishermen and urge further punitive actions without a single mention of the violation of illegal fishing and toxic dumping by vessels from the countries of those sitting in the ICGS and UN forums in judgment of the piracy issue. At the ICGS Anti-Piracy meeting in Cairo on May 30 2009, Egypt and Italy were two of the loudest countries calling for severe punishment of the Somali fishermen pirates. As the ICGS are meeting in Rome today (June 10, 2009), two Egyptian trawlers full of fish illegally caught in Somali waters and an Italian barge that had been towing two huge tanks suspected of containing toxic or nuclear waste are being held in the Somali coastal town of Las Khorey by the local community, who invited the international experts to come and investigate these cases. So far, the international community has not responded to the Las Khorey community’s invitation. It should be pointed out that both the IUUs and waste dumping are happening in other African countries. Ivory Coast is a victim of major international toxic dumping. It is said that acts of piracy are actually acts of desperation, and, as in the case of Somalia, what is one man’s pirate is another man’s Coast Guard.
Documentary on the toxic waste dumped in Somalia by Italian maritime companies. Two journalists from Italy were assassinated in Mogadishu while investigating into the illegal toxic waste traffic in which they believed the Italian Army and other institutions were also involved.
|
.
The UN Mission in Haiti
| http://www.globalresearch.ca
OAS official Ricardo Seitenfus speaks out
by Gearóid Ó Colmáin
|
|||||||
![]() |
|||||||
|
Global Research, December 26, 2010
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
The Special Representative for the Organisation of American States Ricardo Seitenfus was relieved of his duties 24 hours after he gave a candid interview to the Swiss newspaper Le Temps on Monday December 20th in which he lambasted the UN occupation of Haiti.
In an interview with the Swiss paper Le temps (December 20th 2010), Ricardo Seitenfus, blamed international capitalism for the ills of Haiti. Referring to Haiti’s 200 year national liberation struggle the Brazilian born academic said: “The original sin of Haiti on the international scene was its liberation. Haitians committed an unacceptable crime in 1804: a crime of lesé-majesté for a troubled world. The West was a world of colonialism, slavery and racism whose wealth was based on the exploitation of conquered lands. So the Haitian revolutionary model scared superpowers. The United States did not recognize Haiti’s independence until 1865. And France required payment of a ransom to accept this release. From the beginning, independence was compromised and hampered the development of the country. The world has never known how to deal with Haiti, so it ended up ignoring it. This led to two hundred years of solitude for Haiti on the international stage. Today, the UN has blindly applied Chapter 7 of its charter; it deploys its troops to impose its peace operation. It is solving nothing, and even making things worse. We want to make Haiti a capitalist country, an export platform for the U.S. market. It is absurd.” In 2004 Jean Bertrand Aristide was removed from office after a coup organised by the governments of France, the United States and Canada. Aristide’s Fanmi Lavalas party enjoyed overwhelming support among Haiti’s poor population. Aristide’s emphasis on social justice, equality and participative democracy threatened the interests of the financial and political elites of the developed world whose conception of democracy involves private control by multinational corporations over all means of production, education and health.
According to Seitenfus, Haiti’s tragedy has always been its proximity to the USA, who have ruthlessly oppressed the island in the pursuit of their own economic interests. Seitenfus went on to denounce the role of NGOS in Haiti stating that many NGOs behaved more like businessmen than humanitarian workers and were using Haiti as a laboratory to test out new technologies and recruiting young people with neither experience nor knowledge of the Haitian people. Seitenfus lamented that fact that Haitian doctors trained in Cuba were emigrating to the United States, Canada and France rather than staying in their own country to help the poor. Seitenfus also criticised the attempt by the ‘international community’ to keep Haiti dependent on aid, citing fair trade and sustainable local agriculture as well as a tourism industry based on respect for Haitian identity and culture as the way in which the country should be developed. Speaking about his experience in Haiti Mr Seitenfus said:
Approximately 24 hours after this interview Mr. Seitenfus was no longer the Special Representative of the Organisation of American States. Speaking the truth about Haiti cost him his job. But Mr. Seitenfus can take comfort in the knowledge that he spoke up for the people of Haiti when others were too greedy, too cowardly or too indifferent to do so. Setenfus referred to Haiti’s geographical misfortune, being so close to the USA. This is indeed true, but Europe’s role in Haiti’s misery has been no less destructive than that played by the United States. There is a common conception in Europe that the problem in the world today is the United States, that if the European Union were to be sufficiently centralized, it could play a more constructive role in the world, providing a balance to US global hegemony. Nothing could be further from the truth. The EU is every bit as cruel, corrupt and despotic as the United States of America. Every time the subject of Haiti is mentioned in French media, maudlin pity and condescension infuse the mendacious discourse. The French media have never honestly acknowledged France’s direct role in the destruction of Haiti from their support for the Duvalier dictatorships in the Cold War to the kidnapping of the democratically elected president Jean Bertrand Aristide in 2004. Nor have the French media ever reported on the atrocities committed by the MINUSTAH UN troops currently occupying the island, against the wishes of the population. The European Union has arrogated to itself the role of international arbiter in matters concerning democracy, sending out anonymous delegates to other countries to judge their political systems in terms of ‘human rights’ and ‘democracy’. In 2003, the European Union worked with Initiative de la Societé Civile, an offshoot of Group of 184, headed by André Apaid, an American sweat shop owner with an impressive record on ‘human rights’. The European Union gave Apaid’s ‘civil society’ organisation 773,000 Euro. According to the Centre for the Study of Human Rights, Apaid paid Thomas “Labanye” Robinson to murder members of the Fanmi Lavalas party. Apaid’s opposition to Jean Bertrand Aristide intensified when he doubled the minimum wage of workers in Haiti. Raising the wages of the world’s poorest workers is clearly a ‘human rights’ violation in the eyes of the EU and the USA! In the elections in December 2010, approved by the US and the EU, the country’s most popular party Fanmi Lavalas was banned from participation. In other words, the European Union and the United States advocated the exclusion of the majority of Haitian citizens from the democratic process. Until such a time as the rebellious slums of Haiti realize what the rich countries mean by ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’ UN troops will patrol the streets of Port Au Prince keeping, in the words of Mr. Seitenfus, ‘the peace of the cemetery’.
Gearóid Ó Colmáin is a columnist in English and Gaelic with Metro Éireann, Ireland’s multicultural newspaper. His blog is at www.metrogael.blogspot.com . He can be contacted at gaelmetro@yahoo.ie. |
|||||||
|
Gearóid Ó Colmáin is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Gearóid Ó Colmáin
. |
|||||||
Haitians turn on UN peacekeepers they blame for cholera outbreak
http://www.guardian.co.uk
Rioters and troops clash amid claims from locals that Nepalese soldiers working for UN mission brought disease to country
- Rory Carroll in Port-au-Prince
- guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 16 November 2010 20.25 GMT
- Article history
A UN soldier on patrol in an earthquake refugee camp in Cité Soleil, Haiti. Photograph: Andres Martinez Casares/EFEThey came in 2004 as saviours to a nation which thought things could not get any worse. History and geography had conspired against Haiti, piling misery upon misfortune, but then the blue helmets arrived, and with them hope.
The 12,000 UN peacekeepers, one of the biggest such missions in the world, lived up to their name: they kept peace. Rampaging criminal gangs melted away and anarchy gave way to stability.
But those days seemed a distant memory tonight after clashes between rioters and troops left two dead, dozens injured, foreigners in hiding and an awful question hanging in the tear-gassed air: did the UN mission, known as Minustah, bring cholera to Haiti?
The boys and men hurling rocks and bottles and shooting at foreign soldiers in the northern towns of Cap-Haitien and Hinche had no doubt. Nor did the residents of Port-au-Prince, who greeted UN convoys with sullen stares and insults.
“Minustah merde!” one man on Rue de Silence yelled at a passing pick-up with blue helmets. He made a slicing motion across his throat before being enveloped in a cloud of diesel and dust. Such is the confusion and loathing it was unclear if it was a threat or a comment on the UN’s possible role in the cholera outbreak.
The irony that Haiti’s putative saviours, in the aftermath of hurricanes and an apocalyptic earthquake, may have brought a water-borne bacterium called Vibrio cholerae has hit what were already fraught preparations for elections on 28 November. Foreign diplomats are holding their breath for the vote to go ahead on schedule.
The facts are thus: an exploding epidemic has killed more than 1,000, infected tens of thousands and spread anxiety through slums and tent cities. There had been no cholera here in living memory. The strain appears to be from south Asia. Soldiers from Nepal, which has cholera, moved into a base beside the Artibonite river in early October. The base has sanitation problems. A week later the river was contaminated and people in the area started vomiting and getting diarrhoea.
That does not add up to proof, and there are alternative explanations, but it seemed good enough yesterday for crowds in Hinche to assault Nepalese troops with bottles and rocks, wounding six. In Cap-Haitien, the country’s second city, a police sub-station was torched, roads were blocked and shots were fired at the UN.
“They’re targeting [and] fighting with Minustah and so if they see white people, they can rush to judge, and target them too,” Jonna Knappenberger, an aid worker in the city, wrote on the Haiti Rewired blog. “Minustah has definitely shot Haitians, at least two are dead, but of course we can’t confirm directly. Haitians are firing guns too, we keep hearing it. I personally would fear for my life on the street right now, especially at night.”
The UN dispatched Spanish soldiers to Cap-Haitien but today it remained cut off, with burning barricades across roads and metal barriers welded to the bridge leading to the airport.
A UN statement blamed the violence on political agitators and said troops fired in self-defence. “Minustah urges the population to remain vigilant and not to allow itself to be manipulated by the enemies of stability and democracy in the country.”
Officials have denied the Nepalese brought cholera and said they all tested negative. Appeals from Haitian leaders and foreign epidemiologists for an official investigation, however, have been ignored.
The controversy has shone a new light on what has been regarded internationally as a successful Brazilian-led mission. Despite extreme poverty and destruction Haiti remains relatively peaceful.
Many Haitians, however, have long criticised the outsiders as a cumbersome occupation force that squanders $500m better spent on building up ramshackle local police and courts.
“Speaking in a personal capacity, I don’t know why we have them,” said Prospery Raymond, country director of the UK-based NGO Christian Aid. “Yes, we have some gangs but we don’t have a war or insurgents.”
Most of the population believed the cholera came from the Nepalese and that the UN will do its best to hide it, he said. “If it is confirmed to be from them this will be damaging for the UN and their peacekeeping all over the world.”
In comparison US troops, who briefly led relief efforts after January’s earthquake, are popular and many people want them back. “Ameriken OK,” smiled Michel Ceant, a vegetable vendor in Port-au-Prince. Then he pointed to his mouth and made a retching sound. “Minustah – bleuh!
.
Ahmadinejad’s speech HACKED at United Nations
http://english.aljazeera.net
full speech in English Language of M.Ahmadinejad at the UN on the 23. Sept. 2010 ( courtesy : http://irananders.de )
.










































