WHO IS MUAMMAR GADDAFI?
By Antonio Cesar Oliveira (4/3/11)
Friday, 04 March 2011 09:57
Pravda. Article translated and reproduced in
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27593.htm And in:
http://futurefastforward.com/feature-articles/5106-who-is-muammar-gaddafi-by-antonio-cesar-oliveira-4311
FACTS THAT NOBODY CAN IGNORE
How can you call someone a dictator leader who overthrew a corrupt monarchy, modernized the country, won the highest HDI in Africa, and applied a direct democracy system of government?
Gaddafi has always supported revolutionary movements around the world. When the media - in the service of the U.S. - praised the apartheid regime South Africa, young Gaddafi in Libya trained and sent them back with the best weapons to win freedom in South Africa.
Suddenly the press began a daily attack on the leader Muammar Gaddafi, to distill hatred, spreading lies, forging videos for what? What does it prove? The crimes of the Libyan government? Apparently this journalistic line was caused by popular uprisings in Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen and Egypt.
In fact, it is more a question of one more terrorist strategy of the government of the United States of America to recover influence in the Arab world. In Egypt, the government fell in U.S. confidence. Mubarak was merely an agent of U.S. and Israel interests in the region. With the fall of Mubarak, Iranian ships began to circulate in the vicinity of Israel, causing unease and anger in the diplomatic environments subservient to imperialism and Zionism.
THE US TRIES TO DIVIDE LIBYA
After losing Egypt, the U.S. government tries to divide and weaken Libya, and this effort receives support from the supporters of Bin Laden, and thousands of Egyptian refugees that over the years have taken refuge in eastern Libya, fleeing the repression in Egypt. After the Egyptians came Algerians, Tunisians and Somalis, followers of Al Qaeda. They enjoyed the hospitality of the Libyans and then the next thing they stabbed them in the back, triggering a revolt that has left tens of victims, through sabotage, terrorism and destruction of public property.
But who is this Qaddafi that the media suddenly started to attack in all forms, and even in a most cowardly form? Gaddafi led a revolution to overthrow King Idris, a puppet of Italian and American interests in the region. At the time, the largest U.S. military base abroad was in Libya, Qaddafi and his supporters surrounded the base and gave 24 hours for all invading foreigners to leave the country.
In power, Gaddafi did not like the Arab monarchs, did not build palaces with gold, not buy luxury yachts or collections of imported cars. He devoted himself to rebuilding the country, ensuring better living conditions for the people. Today Qaddafi is not president or prime minister of Libya, but the media wants him to resign a post which does not exist.
The lies of the media cannot hide the fact that Gaddafi has supported the struggles of peoples for liberation in Nicaragua, Cuba, Angola, Mozambique, South Africa and many other countries, specifically concretely helping the people who fought for liberation. In practice, Gaddafi has always been a benefactor of mankind, but for the mercenary media, a benefactor is one who creates wars in search of profits for the arms industry or to dominate the world, as were the wars created by the U.S. in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, El Salvador, Nicaragua and many other countries.
This utterly ridiculous gossip of wealth and strange customs have always been exploited by the media, it was with Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, Fidel Castro, Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez and etc. It is enough to be a serious ruler that does not seriously kneel down and cower in fear before the United States and is not intimidated to be demonised and disparaged by the mercenary media.
Another fact that the media cannot falsify is the HDI (Human Development Index) measured by UN officials. These data indicate, for example, that Libya had in 1970, a situation a little worse than Brazil (HDI of 0.541, against 0.551 of Brazil.) The Libyan index surpassed the Brazilian years later, and in 2008 was well ahead: 0.810 (ranked 43rd), compared to 0.764 (ranking 59th). All three sub-indices that comprise the HDI is higher in the African country: income, longevity and education.
In the HDI recast the difference remains. Libya is ranked the 53rd (0.755) and Brazil 73rd (.699). Libya is the country with the highest HDI in Africa. Therefore, the best distribution of income, and health and public education are free. And almost 10% of Libyan students receive scholarships to study in foreign countries.
So what kind of dictatorship is this? A dictatorship would never allow this kind of policy for the benefit of the people.
Gadhafi wrote the Green Book, the Third Universal Theory, which deals with controversial and real issues. He complains, for example, about the falsification of democracy through parliamentary assemblies. In most countries that consider themselves democratic, including the United States of America, political parties are organized criminal gangs to loot the people's money in legislative assemblies, City Councils, House of Representatives, etc.
DIRECT DEMOCRACY
This observation - and a book in publication - certainly irritate and anger them? The defenders of parliamentary democracy? The Green Book, written by Gaddafi, says that workers should be involved and self-employed, and that the land must be of those who work it and those who live in the house. And power shall be exercised by the people directly, without intermediaries, without politicians, through popular congresses and committees, where the whole population decides the fundamental issues of the district, city and country. These words, which everyone knows are true, revolt and irritate those few who benefit from the falsification of democracy, especially the capitalist regimes.
But the press will keep on on forging the news, boiling hatred by spreading lies, because it is following orders from the U.S. government, very interested in the large oil reserves of Libya.
MEDIA MANIPULATION
Major newspapers and television channels in the world use news agencies from the United States, all biased, misleading and deceptive. The lies that the news agencies sell buy public opinion, and most people? By naivete or misinformation they behave like puppets, repeating whatever the U.S. government determines and imposes.
This is not the first nor will it be the last, the Libyan Arab people face powerful foreign powers. Again the Libyan people will win, because they have the leadership of Muammar Qaddafi, an effective, strong and honorable guide.
*In a rare interview with Western journalists in January 1986, only months before the U.S. terrorist bombing of Libya, the Leader of the Revolution spoke frankly about his life and how he had been misunderstood by the West. Meeting the journalists in his tent he told of how he admired former US Presidents George Washington and Abraham Lincoln and of other world leaders he admires like "Egypt's late Gamal Abdul Nasser, India's Mahatma Gandhi, Sun Yat-Sen of China and Italy's Garibaldi and Mazzini." (Really, I'm a Nice Guy, Kate Dourian, Tripoli, Libya.)
He spoke of his favourite book The Outsider by British author Colin Wilson and others he likes such as Uncle Tom's Cabin and Roots. Throughout this interview the profound thinking and innate humanity of Muammar Qadhafi shone through.
He also stated in another interview: "I see the press as being the messengers between me and the world to tell them the truth."
viernes, 4 de marzo de 2011
jueves, 3 de marzo de 2011
Airstrikes In Libya Did Not Take Place MUST-WATCH VIDEO By Russian Military (3/3/11)
Media scam: Airstrikes In Libya Did Not Take Place By Russian Military MUST-WATCH VIDEO (3/3/11)
Posted by Administrator
Thursday, 03 March 2011 17:54
http://futurefastforward.com/feature-articles
The reports of Libya mobilizing its air force against its own people spread quickly around the world. However, Russia's military chiefs say they have been monitoring from space -- and the pictures tell a different story.
According to Al Jazeera and BBC, on February 22 Libyan government inflicted airstrikes on Benghazi -- the country's largest city -- and on the capital Tripoli. However, the Russian military, monitoring the unrest via satellite from the very beginning, says nothing of the sort was going on on the ground. At this point, the Russian military is saying that, as far as they are concerned, the attacks some media were reporting have never occurred. The same sources in Russia's military establishment say they are also monitoring the situation around Libya's oil pumping facilities.
Posted by Administrator
Thursday, 03 March 2011 17:54
http://futurefastforward.com/feature-articles
The reports of Libya mobilizing its air force against its own people spread quickly around the world. However, Russia's military chiefs say they have been monitoring from space -- and the pictures tell a different story.
According to Al Jazeera and BBC, on February 22 Libyan government inflicted airstrikes on Benghazi -- the country's largest city -- and on the capital Tripoli. However, the Russian military, monitoring the unrest via satellite from the very beginning, says nothing of the sort was going on on the ground. At this point, the Russian military is saying that, as far as they are concerned, the attacks some media were reporting have never occurred. The same sources in Russia's military establishment say they are also monitoring the situation around Libya's oil pumping facilities.
Gadafi, neoliberalismo y el FMI
Gadafi, neoliberalismo, el FMI
y los gobiernos supuestamente defensores de los derechos humanos
Vicenç Navarro. www.vnavarro.org
http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=123415
Gadaffi el revolucionario Gadafi no siempre fue lo que es (y ha sido) desde hace ya años: un dictador corrupto y enormemente represivo. En realidad, en 1969, el Coronel Gadafi, entonces tenía 27 años, lideró un golpe a imagen y semejanza de su ídolo, el Coronel Nasser en Egipto, destronando al monarca Idris (que estaba bajo tratamiento médico en Turquía). En sus primeros años hizo reformas sustanciales, entre las que se encontraba una reforma agraria y la nacionalización del petróleo (mayor recurso del país), dedicando gran parte de los recursos obtenidos de la explotación del petróleo a mejorar sustancialmente el bienestar social de las clases populares y, muy en especial, los servicios de asistencia sanitaria y educación. Estableció también formas de participación de los obreros en los lugares de trabajo en las empresas (más de doscientas) que fueron nacionalizadas. Sus primeros años se caracterizaron también por un intervencionismo del estado en la economía de aquel país, que incluía la nacionalización del crédito a través del Banco Central Estatal. Gadafi presentó aquella experiencia como la tercera vía entre capitalismo y el socialismo, asociado entonces a la Unión Soviética.
Diferencias entre Gadafi y Nasser. Hubo, sin embargo, notables diferencias también entre Gadafi y Nasser. Y una de ellas fue que a diferencia de Nasser, Gadafi no quería establecer un estado laico, sino islámico. Pero, en este intento se enfrentó con un movimiento islámico más radical que intentó incluso asesinarle más tarde en 1993. Esta corriente radical tenía lazos con Al Qaeda, también influyente en Marruecos y Argelia. De ahí que Gadafi fuera un enemigo acérrimo de Al Qaeda y que durante y después del ataque de Al Qaeda a las Torres Gemelas en Nueva York, Gadafi apoyara al gobierno Bush en su lucha contra el terrorismo islámico. Vijay Prashad, en su ensayo The Lybian Labyrinth, hace explícitas muchas referencias favorables que Gadafi hizo a la política del Presidente Bush en contra del terrorismo del radicalismo islámico. Fue entonces cuando el Presidente Aznar aplaudió a Gadafi y su apoyo a la guerra en contra del terrorismo islámico del Presidente Bush.
El cambio de su política económica
Del capitalismo popular a las privatizaciones. Su tercera vía se transformó, más tarde, en capitalismo popular, desarrollando políticas públicas que cambiaron significativamente muchas de las reformas que había realizado en los primeros años de su mandato. En muchos aspectos fue un giro de 180 grados. Una de tales medidas fue favorecer la privatización de las empresas productoras y distribuidoras de petróleo, facilitando y estimulando la inversión extranjera, la cual alcanzó su máxima expresión en la década de los noventa. El máximo arquitecto de estas medidas privatizadoras de la industria del petróleo fue Shokri Ghanem que fue primer ministro del gobierno Gadafi y dirigía la poderosa Compañía Nacional del Petróleo (Nacional Oil Corporation).
Los beneficiarios de las recetas del FMI. Las compañías que se beneficiaron de estas privatizaciones estaban incluidas en un amplio abanico, desde Occidental Petroleum, a China Nacional Petroleum. Ni que decir tiene que los gobiernos occidentales, y muy en especial los europeos, compitieron para conseguir favores de Gadafi. El gobierno de Blair incluso liberó a los responsables del atentado terrorista del avión Pa Nam, que había ocurrido en territorio británico y Berlusconi realizó campañas de promoción de Gadafi que alcanzaron niveles histriónicos que el presidente italiano justificó indicando que “la prevención de la inmigración ilegal y el petróleo” bien valían sus agasajos. Y para no ser menos el Presidente Aznar primero, seguido del Presidente Zapatero y del Monarca español, todos ellos visitaron a Gadafi con su lista de ruegos e inversiones.
Neoliberalism y corrupcion van de la mano. Estas privatizaciones alcanzaron a la mayoría de las empresas públicas, que realizadas dentro de un sistema dictatorial, fueron acompañadas de una gran corrupción que enriqueció a los miembros de la familia Gadafi, y muy en especial a uno de sus hijos que aspiraba a ser su sucesor. Todos estos cambios privatizadores (que fueron alabados por el entonces Presidente Aznar) se hicieron bajo la supervisión del Fondo Monetario Internacional (FMI) que, en su último informe, señalaba el estado de la economía de Libia como muy bueno. En realidad, como también había ocurrido en Túnez y Egipto, los indicadores de crecimiento económico libios eran altamente positivos.
Golpe a las clases trabajadoras. Lo que esta visión optimista de la economía libia ignoraba y ocultaba es que tales medidas, apoyadas por el FMI, estaban dañando muy seriamente a las clases populares y a la clase trabajadora. Las medidas neoliberales que determinaron la subida de los precios de los alimentos y la eliminación de los subsidios públicos crearon revueltas que precedieron a la última movilización popular. Y como en Túnez y Egipto determinaron, por fin, que las clases populares salieran a la calle, intentando forzar la dimisión de Gadafi y el final de su dictadura. En esta movilización coinciden movimientos laicos junto con movimientos islamistas que son los que reciben mayor atención de los medios de información internacional.
Gadaffi un peon del IMF. Una vez más el Fondo Monetario Internacional, al presionar a las élites dictatoriales a llevar a cabo políticas de claro corte neoliberal, estaban afectando negativamente las difíciles condiciones que la población libia tenía que padecer, forzándoles a salir a la calle para protestar y exigir al dictador y a su camarilla corrupta el final del régimen. Es interesante, por cierto, subrayar que una de las primeras medidas que tomó la Junta Militar en Egipto fue, además de prohibir las huelgas, abandonar gran parte de las políticas neoliberales que el FMI había exigido al gobierno Mubarak.
Who armed Gadaffi? Una última observación. La mayoría de las armas y equipamientos de represión que Gadafi tiene a su disposición fue suministrada por EEUU, Gran Bretaña (especializada en equipamiento policial), Francia y España. Como bien ha indicado Tarecq Amer en su ensayo “Oil, Arms and the Imperial Enterprise in North Africa”, hablar de Gadafi es hablar de corrupción y armas para adquirir petróleo por parte de poderes autodefinidos como defensores de los derechos humanos, incluyendo España.
(Ver también los artículos: “¿Quién apoyó la dictadura de Túnez?” y “Lo que no se conoce sobre Egipto” en www.vnavarro.org).
y los gobiernos supuestamente defensores de los derechos humanos
Vicenç Navarro. www.vnavarro.org
http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=123415
Gadaffi el revolucionario Gadafi no siempre fue lo que es (y ha sido) desde hace ya años: un dictador corrupto y enormemente represivo. En realidad, en 1969, el Coronel Gadafi, entonces tenía 27 años, lideró un golpe a imagen y semejanza de su ídolo, el Coronel Nasser en Egipto, destronando al monarca Idris (que estaba bajo tratamiento médico en Turquía). En sus primeros años hizo reformas sustanciales, entre las que se encontraba una reforma agraria y la nacionalización del petróleo (mayor recurso del país), dedicando gran parte de los recursos obtenidos de la explotación del petróleo a mejorar sustancialmente el bienestar social de las clases populares y, muy en especial, los servicios de asistencia sanitaria y educación. Estableció también formas de participación de los obreros en los lugares de trabajo en las empresas (más de doscientas) que fueron nacionalizadas. Sus primeros años se caracterizaron también por un intervencionismo del estado en la economía de aquel país, que incluía la nacionalización del crédito a través del Banco Central Estatal. Gadafi presentó aquella experiencia como la tercera vía entre capitalismo y el socialismo, asociado entonces a la Unión Soviética.
Diferencias entre Gadafi y Nasser. Hubo, sin embargo, notables diferencias también entre Gadafi y Nasser. Y una de ellas fue que a diferencia de Nasser, Gadafi no quería establecer un estado laico, sino islámico. Pero, en este intento se enfrentó con un movimiento islámico más radical que intentó incluso asesinarle más tarde en 1993. Esta corriente radical tenía lazos con Al Qaeda, también influyente en Marruecos y Argelia. De ahí que Gadafi fuera un enemigo acérrimo de Al Qaeda y que durante y después del ataque de Al Qaeda a las Torres Gemelas en Nueva York, Gadafi apoyara al gobierno Bush en su lucha contra el terrorismo islámico. Vijay Prashad, en su ensayo The Lybian Labyrinth, hace explícitas muchas referencias favorables que Gadafi hizo a la política del Presidente Bush en contra del terrorismo del radicalismo islámico. Fue entonces cuando el Presidente Aznar aplaudió a Gadafi y su apoyo a la guerra en contra del terrorismo islámico del Presidente Bush.
El cambio de su política económica
Del capitalismo popular a las privatizaciones. Su tercera vía se transformó, más tarde, en capitalismo popular, desarrollando políticas públicas que cambiaron significativamente muchas de las reformas que había realizado en los primeros años de su mandato. En muchos aspectos fue un giro de 180 grados. Una de tales medidas fue favorecer la privatización de las empresas productoras y distribuidoras de petróleo, facilitando y estimulando la inversión extranjera, la cual alcanzó su máxima expresión en la década de los noventa. El máximo arquitecto de estas medidas privatizadoras de la industria del petróleo fue Shokri Ghanem que fue primer ministro del gobierno Gadafi y dirigía la poderosa Compañía Nacional del Petróleo (Nacional Oil Corporation).
Los beneficiarios de las recetas del FMI. Las compañías que se beneficiaron de estas privatizaciones estaban incluidas en un amplio abanico, desde Occidental Petroleum, a China Nacional Petroleum. Ni que decir tiene que los gobiernos occidentales, y muy en especial los europeos, compitieron para conseguir favores de Gadafi. El gobierno de Blair incluso liberó a los responsables del atentado terrorista del avión Pa Nam, que había ocurrido en territorio británico y Berlusconi realizó campañas de promoción de Gadafi que alcanzaron niveles histriónicos que el presidente italiano justificó indicando que “la prevención de la inmigración ilegal y el petróleo” bien valían sus agasajos. Y para no ser menos el Presidente Aznar primero, seguido del Presidente Zapatero y del Monarca español, todos ellos visitaron a Gadafi con su lista de ruegos e inversiones.
Neoliberalism y corrupcion van de la mano. Estas privatizaciones alcanzaron a la mayoría de las empresas públicas, que realizadas dentro de un sistema dictatorial, fueron acompañadas de una gran corrupción que enriqueció a los miembros de la familia Gadafi, y muy en especial a uno de sus hijos que aspiraba a ser su sucesor. Todos estos cambios privatizadores (que fueron alabados por el entonces Presidente Aznar) se hicieron bajo la supervisión del Fondo Monetario Internacional (FMI) que, en su último informe, señalaba el estado de la economía de Libia como muy bueno. En realidad, como también había ocurrido en Túnez y Egipto, los indicadores de crecimiento económico libios eran altamente positivos.
Golpe a las clases trabajadoras. Lo que esta visión optimista de la economía libia ignoraba y ocultaba es que tales medidas, apoyadas por el FMI, estaban dañando muy seriamente a las clases populares y a la clase trabajadora. Las medidas neoliberales que determinaron la subida de los precios de los alimentos y la eliminación de los subsidios públicos crearon revueltas que precedieron a la última movilización popular. Y como en Túnez y Egipto determinaron, por fin, que las clases populares salieran a la calle, intentando forzar la dimisión de Gadafi y el final de su dictadura. En esta movilización coinciden movimientos laicos junto con movimientos islamistas que son los que reciben mayor atención de los medios de información internacional.
Gadaffi un peon del IMF. Una vez más el Fondo Monetario Internacional, al presionar a las élites dictatoriales a llevar a cabo políticas de claro corte neoliberal, estaban afectando negativamente las difíciles condiciones que la población libia tenía que padecer, forzándoles a salir a la calle para protestar y exigir al dictador y a su camarilla corrupta el final del régimen. Es interesante, por cierto, subrayar que una de las primeras medidas que tomó la Junta Militar en Egipto fue, además de prohibir las huelgas, abandonar gran parte de las políticas neoliberales que el FMI había exigido al gobierno Mubarak.
Who armed Gadaffi? Una última observación. La mayoría de las armas y equipamientos de represión que Gadafi tiene a su disposición fue suministrada por EEUU, Gran Bretaña (especializada en equipamiento policial), Francia y España. Como bien ha indicado Tarecq Amer en su ensayo “Oil, Arms and the Imperial Enterprise in North Africa”, hablar de Gadafi es hablar de corrupción y armas para adquirir petróleo por parte de poderes autodefinidos como defensores de los derechos humanos, incluyendo España.
(Ver también los artículos: “¿Quién apoyó la dictadura de Túnez?” y “Lo que no se conoce sobre Egipto” en www.vnavarro.org).
OIL and the NATO Invasion of Libya Underway
Petroleum and Empire in North Africa. NATO Invasion of Libya Underwayhttp://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23481
Muamar Gaddafi Accused of Genocide
by Keith Harmon Snow
[Extracts]
The CIA has long wanted to eliminate and replace Muamar Gaddafi. President Reagan bombed Tripoli, killing Gaddafi's infant daughter: the United States bombing of Libya (code-named Operation El Dorado Canyon) comprised the joint USAF, Navy, and Marines air-strikes against Libya on April 15, 1986. The US CIA brought down the Lockerbie Pan Am 103 flight over Scotland in 1988 and blamed this on Gaddafi.
In recent years Gaddafi has played along with the western fiction of Al-Queda, though it seems likely that some of the true mercenaries in Libya today are 'Al-Queda' terrorists trained by the United States to serve US interests in places like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and now Libya. However, the CIA has always had their sites on Gaddafi.
Note the double standard in how the western press presents the accusations of Gaddafi using mercenaries, as if it is something unique to Gaddafi and Libya, and not something we ever do.
National front for the Salvation of Libya
In almost all western media accounts, the so-called "opposition" in Libya includes the unspecified, unnamed, unidentified "rebels" of the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL). These are not innocent 'pro-democracy' protestors who began with a 'peaceful sit-in' as reported by the New York Times and uncritically repeated everywhere else.
National Endowment for (non) Democracy
In 1983, the Pentagon, USAID, US State Department, and the CIA were all involved in the creation and implementation of 'Project Democracy' -- National Security Decision Directive 77 (NSDD 77) -- and this led to the creation of the National Endowment for Democracy. After that, many of the tactics used in covert interventions were shifted away from the CIA and onto the NED, whose involvement with covert operations and foreign interventions are nonetheless well-established.
A 'soft' intervention CIA front, the National Endowment for Democracy has been deeply involved in Libya along with the CIA fronted Freedom House (under their Blue Umbrella program and others). These entities have backed 'opposition', supported propaganda campaigns and so-called 'pro-democracy' movements, and are known to be involved with backing armed insurgents and interventions.
Media Manipulation Rogue State Painted with Blatant Propaganda
In the ABC LITELINE report FNSL Leader Speaks from Washington we find the Washington monument in the background for an interview with an Arab agent being used by the western propaganda system as a credible source -- but with zero explanations of who he is or why his claims might be false.
Here are some of the media's rallying cries making headlines everywhere the English language is used:
* Gaddafi killing his own people!
* West worried that Gaddafi may use Nerve Gas!
* Heavy Weaponry Used Against Civilians!
* Heavy Arms Used in Libyan Crackdown!
* Gaddafi Committing Crimes Against Humanity!
The death tolls in Iraq, Afghanistan and Congo -- by US/NATO/ISRAELI forces -- far surpass anything that might have occurred in Libya. Meanwhile, most 'news' on Libya is based on false accusations and false assertions -- such as the THREAT of nerve gas being used.
Gaddafi Sides with Empire
"[T]he fundamental problem and issue before the people in the region is that the US rulers seek imperial control and imposition of semi-colonial country-selling regimes; the more autocratic and brutal, the better from the point of the US imperialism that is unrelenting history," reports Ralph Schoenman, in 'US Imperialism Against Democratic ME'. "Every time the population is given the opportunity to shape its own destiny, to seek its national independence, to seek its own control over its own resources, to seeks its own sovereignty and determination of its own future, that is incompatible with the US imperialism.
When Barack Obama was accepted by the US people as the new president, Gaddafi praised Obama and described Obama's White House housesit as "a victory against racism" and he urged the first Black U.S. president "to lead his country boldly and with integrity."
Pentagon Invasion Already Underway
The US will use any propaganda necessary to whip up American fervor over Gaddafi and justify Pentagon or MI6 or NATO operations. US and British warships sit off the coast of Libya -- and they don't sit there idly. The imposition of a 'no-fly' zone means that US/NATO planes can do as they like, with the understanding that what we are really talking about are possible bombing and fighter sorties against Libya.
US troops have already moved ashore in Libya, joining the 'opposition ' and 'rebel' forces in 'rebel' controlled territories. The US, France and Britain have already set up Bases in Libya.
The recent report noted that British and US special forces entered Libyan port cities of Benghazi and Toburk on February 23 and 24.
US covert operatives have been on the ground for weeks, in not much longer, whether they have entered by sea (SEALS) or by way of Niger, where the US has openly published information about its covert operations. (See, for example, the travelology reports by former U.S. Special Forces now 'journalist' Robert Kaplan in America's African Rifles a Pentagon massaged and approved propaganda feature in the pro-war Atlantic Monthly). Any opportunity to attack, destabilize, invade will be exploited by the Pentagon.
The Desert Mystic
Libya is a country of approximately 6 million people, having a huge geographical area but low population density. Claims that Gaddafi has uplifted his people over the course of his 40 year dictatorship are false. Poverty is high throughout the country, and in Tripoli there are the obvious signs of capitalism: overcrowding, traffic, environmental pollution and destruction of nature. However, Gaddafi's "Green Book" -- if in fact it was written by him -- is worth reading. Had it been written by most anyone else who is opposed to the expansion of western empire with all its horrors, it would be more widely appreciated.
Gaddafi has funded Pan-African organizations and individuals, some of whom have very noble missions and serve to challenge the downtrodden, while he has also funded some armed factions involved in unjust wars or destabilizations. Gaddafi has funded Louis Farrakan and the Nation of Islam. He has funded Jean Pierre Bemba and the Movement for the Liberation of Congo (MLC), the rebellion also backed by Yoweri Museveni, responsible for a very definitive genocide in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
And Now, The Gaddafi Genocide
Claims made by Libyan 'opposition' and reported in the western press that Gaddafi is committing genocide against his own people represent the height of western arrogance and hypocrisy. At this very moment the wars being prosecuted by the USA and its allies, including Japan, Europe, Israel, South Africa, Canada and Australia, far dwarf the 'atrocities' committed in Libya. While we have no credible reporting about who is killing, who is opposition, how many dead, etc., out of Libya, we have credible report after credible report establishing that the US and its allies have perpetrated massacres, tortures, and other atrocities, in the millions of people, in Congo, Rwanda, Uganda, Afghanistan, Iraq and Sudan - for a short list.
Mercenaries and the mass media
Western mercenaries that have been deeply involved, and remain so, in some of the world's bloodiest conflicts, in coup d'etats, in massacres and other atrocities, include British mercenary Tony Buckingham -- whose mercenary past is legendary -- founder of Heritage Oil & Gas, a petroleum company linked by Buckingham to mercenary firms Branch Energy and Sandline International. Buckingham was also a partner in the infamous Executive Outcomes, with former British SAS soldier-of-misfortune Tim Spicer -- the recipient of massive Pentagon contracts in Iraq. Heritage director General Sir Michael Wilkes retired from the British Army in 1995 and is a former Middle East adviser to the British government and a member of the Army Board. Wilkes commanded Britain's Special Air Services (SAS) regiment and was director of Special Forces. Heritage Oil has exploited opportunities in Mali, Uganda, Republic of Congo, Oman and Iraq.
In short, almost everything in the western press on the crises in Libya is slanted by some faction, or interest, or it is tainted by western arrogance, or by anti-imperialist ideology (of 'solidarity'), even in the case of the alternative media. There is very little accurate reporting of any kind (but some good work linked or cited herein).
This report is just another incomplete picture of an incomplete puzzle -- but it seeks to penetrate through and expose the ongoing western media campaign for what it is: a psychological operation against the masses of earth's people who have not and do not benefit from the nasty policies and actions implemented to serve a very small and elite group of people.
People wishing to support the legitimate grievances and actions for freedom and truth in Libya should challenge the western terrorist apparatus out of Washington, DC, Tel Aviv, Brussels, London and Ottawa.
Prayers for the true innocent civilians in Libya, and across the region.
Muamar Gaddafi Accused of Genocide
by Keith Harmon Snow
[Extracts]
The CIA has long wanted to eliminate and replace Muamar Gaddafi. President Reagan bombed Tripoli, killing Gaddafi's infant daughter: the United States bombing of Libya (code-named Operation El Dorado Canyon) comprised the joint USAF, Navy, and Marines air-strikes against Libya on April 15, 1986. The US CIA brought down the Lockerbie Pan Am 103 flight over Scotland in 1988 and blamed this on Gaddafi.
In recent years Gaddafi has played along with the western fiction of Al-Queda, though it seems likely that some of the true mercenaries in Libya today are 'Al-Queda' terrorists trained by the United States to serve US interests in places like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and now Libya. However, the CIA has always had their sites on Gaddafi.
Note the double standard in how the western press presents the accusations of Gaddafi using mercenaries, as if it is something unique to Gaddafi and Libya, and not something we ever do.
National front for the Salvation of Libya
In almost all western media accounts, the so-called "opposition" in Libya includes the unspecified, unnamed, unidentified "rebels" of the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL). These are not innocent 'pro-democracy' protestors who began with a 'peaceful sit-in' as reported by the New York Times and uncritically repeated everywhere else.
National Endowment for (non) Democracy
In 1983, the Pentagon, USAID, US State Department, and the CIA were all involved in the creation and implementation of 'Project Democracy' -- National Security Decision Directive 77 (NSDD 77) -- and this led to the creation of the National Endowment for Democracy. After that, many of the tactics used in covert interventions were shifted away from the CIA and onto the NED, whose involvement with covert operations and foreign interventions are nonetheless well-established.
A 'soft' intervention CIA front, the National Endowment for Democracy has been deeply involved in Libya along with the CIA fronted Freedom House (under their Blue Umbrella program and others). These entities have backed 'opposition', supported propaganda campaigns and so-called 'pro-democracy' movements, and are known to be involved with backing armed insurgents and interventions.
Media Manipulation Rogue State Painted with Blatant Propaganda
In the ABC LITELINE report FNSL Leader Speaks from Washington we find the Washington monument in the background for an interview with an Arab agent being used by the western propaganda system as a credible source -- but with zero explanations of who he is or why his claims might be false.
Here are some of the media's rallying cries making headlines everywhere the English language is used:
* Gaddafi killing his own people!
* West worried that Gaddafi may use Nerve Gas!
* Heavy Weaponry Used Against Civilians!
* Heavy Arms Used in Libyan Crackdown!
* Gaddafi Committing Crimes Against Humanity!
The death tolls in Iraq, Afghanistan and Congo -- by US/NATO/ISRAELI forces -- far surpass anything that might have occurred in Libya. Meanwhile, most 'news' on Libya is based on false accusations and false assertions -- such as the THREAT of nerve gas being used.
Gaddafi Sides with Empire
"[T]he fundamental problem and issue before the people in the region is that the US rulers seek imperial control and imposition of semi-colonial country-selling regimes; the more autocratic and brutal, the better from the point of the US imperialism that is unrelenting history," reports Ralph Schoenman, in 'US Imperialism Against Democratic ME'. "Every time the population is given the opportunity to shape its own destiny, to seek its national independence, to seek its own control over its own resources, to seeks its own sovereignty and determination of its own future, that is incompatible with the US imperialism.
When Barack Obama was accepted by the US people as the new president, Gaddafi praised Obama and described Obama's White House housesit as "a victory against racism" and he urged the first Black U.S. president "to lead his country boldly and with integrity."
Pentagon Invasion Already Underway
The US will use any propaganda necessary to whip up American fervor over Gaddafi and justify Pentagon or MI6 or NATO operations. US and British warships sit off the coast of Libya -- and they don't sit there idly. The imposition of a 'no-fly' zone means that US/NATO planes can do as they like, with the understanding that what we are really talking about are possible bombing and fighter sorties against Libya.
US troops have already moved ashore in Libya, joining the 'opposition ' and 'rebel' forces in 'rebel' controlled territories. The US, France and Britain have already set up Bases in Libya.
The recent report noted that British and US special forces entered Libyan port cities of Benghazi and Toburk on February 23 and 24.
US covert operatives have been on the ground for weeks, in not much longer, whether they have entered by sea (SEALS) or by way of Niger, where the US has openly published information about its covert operations. (See, for example, the travelology reports by former U.S. Special Forces now 'journalist' Robert Kaplan in America's African Rifles a Pentagon massaged and approved propaganda feature in the pro-war Atlantic Monthly). Any opportunity to attack, destabilize, invade will be exploited by the Pentagon.
The Desert Mystic
Libya is a country of approximately 6 million people, having a huge geographical area but low population density. Claims that Gaddafi has uplifted his people over the course of his 40 year dictatorship are false. Poverty is high throughout the country, and in Tripoli there are the obvious signs of capitalism: overcrowding, traffic, environmental pollution and destruction of nature. However, Gaddafi's "Green Book" -- if in fact it was written by him -- is worth reading. Had it been written by most anyone else who is opposed to the expansion of western empire with all its horrors, it would be more widely appreciated.
Gaddafi has funded Pan-African organizations and individuals, some of whom have very noble missions and serve to challenge the downtrodden, while he has also funded some armed factions involved in unjust wars or destabilizations. Gaddafi has funded Louis Farrakan and the Nation of Islam. He has funded Jean Pierre Bemba and the Movement for the Liberation of Congo (MLC), the rebellion also backed by Yoweri Museveni, responsible for a very definitive genocide in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
And Now, The Gaddafi Genocide
Claims made by Libyan 'opposition' and reported in the western press that Gaddafi is committing genocide against his own people represent the height of western arrogance and hypocrisy. At this very moment the wars being prosecuted by the USA and its allies, including Japan, Europe, Israel, South Africa, Canada and Australia, far dwarf the 'atrocities' committed in Libya. While we have no credible reporting about who is killing, who is opposition, how many dead, etc., out of Libya, we have credible report after credible report establishing that the US and its allies have perpetrated massacres, tortures, and other atrocities, in the millions of people, in Congo, Rwanda, Uganda, Afghanistan, Iraq and Sudan - for a short list.
Mercenaries and the mass media
Western mercenaries that have been deeply involved, and remain so, in some of the world's bloodiest conflicts, in coup d'etats, in massacres and other atrocities, include British mercenary Tony Buckingham -- whose mercenary past is legendary -- founder of Heritage Oil & Gas, a petroleum company linked by Buckingham to mercenary firms Branch Energy and Sandline International. Buckingham was also a partner in the infamous Executive Outcomes, with former British SAS soldier-of-misfortune Tim Spicer -- the recipient of massive Pentagon contracts in Iraq. Heritage director General Sir Michael Wilkes retired from the British Army in 1995 and is a former Middle East adviser to the British government and a member of the Army Board. Wilkes commanded Britain's Special Air Services (SAS) regiment and was director of Special Forces. Heritage Oil has exploited opportunities in Mali, Uganda, Republic of Congo, Oman and Iraq.
In short, almost everything in the western press on the crises in Libya is slanted by some faction, or interest, or it is tainted by western arrogance, or by anti-imperialist ideology (of 'solidarity'), even in the case of the alternative media. There is very little accurate reporting of any kind (but some good work linked or cited herein).
This report is just another incomplete picture of an incomplete puzzle -- but it seeks to penetrate through and expose the ongoing western media campaign for what it is: a psychological operation against the masses of earth's people who have not and do not benefit from the nasty policies and actions implemented to serve a very small and elite group of people.
People wishing to support the legitimate grievances and actions for freedom and truth in Libya should challenge the western terrorist apparatus out of Washington, DC, Tel Aviv, Brussels, London and Ottawa.
Prayers for the true innocent civilians in Libya, and across the region.
Dejen que Libia construya un país unido, transparente y democrático
Dejen que Libia construya un país unido, transparente y democrático!
SEE ENGLISH TRANSLATION IN THE NEXT ARTICLE
Pepe Escobar
Asia Times Online
http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=123481
Traducido del inglés para Rebelión por Germán Leyens
Que no hablen de la “democracia”; Libia, a diferencia de Egipto y Túnez, es una potencia petrolera. Muchas lujosas oficinas de las elites de EE.UU. y Europa se deben de estar regodeando ante la perspectiva de aprovechar la pequeña oportunidad ofrecida por la revolución contra Muamar Gadafi para establecer –o expandir– una cabeza de puente. Estátodo ese petróleo, por cierto. También existe la seducción, cercana, del gasoducto trans-Sáhara, –que cuesta 10.000 millones de dólares y tiene 4.128 kilómetros de largo– desde Nigeria a Argelia, que debe empezar a funcionar en 2015.
Por lo tanto, una vez más, se introduce al mundo en la pornografía de la guerra, a la historia como farsa, a una mala reedición de “conmoción y pavor”. Todos –las Naciones Unidas, EE.UU., la OTAN– ponen el grito en el cielo por una zona de exclusión aérea. Fuerzas especiales están en movimiento, así como barcos de guerra de EE.UU.
Algunos senadores estadounidenses comparan, sin resuello, a Libia con Yugoslavia. Tony “El regreso de los muertos vivientes” Blair ha reaparecido lleno de celo misionero, y el primer ministro británico David Cameron presenta su reflejo exacto, escarnecido debidamente por el hijo de Gadafi, el “modernizador” Saif al-Islam. Hay miedo de las “armas químicas”. Bienvenidos al imperialismo humanitario –un crack.
Wolfowitz y los planes de la OTAN. Como personaje salido directamente de un Scary Movie, el arquitecto de la guerra contra Iraq, Paul Wolfowitz, quiere una zona de exclusión aérea impuesta por la OTAN, mientras la Iniciativa de Política Extranjera –vástago del Proyecto para el Nuevo Siglo Estadounidense– publica una carta abierta al presidente Barack Obama de EE.UU., pidiendo medios militares para convertir Libia en un protectorado regido por la OTAN en nombre de la “comunidad internacional”.
El simple hecho de que toda esta gente esté apoyando a los manifestantes libios hace que todo huela que apesta. El envío del Gran Atemorizador Charlie Sheen a aporrear a Gadafi parecería más verosímil.
El llamado a la cordura de los rusos. Tocó al ministro de exteriores ruso, Sergei Lavrov, introducir una nota de cordura describiendo la noción de una zona de exclusión aérea sobre Libia como “superflua”. Esto significa en la práctica un veto ruso en el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU. Anteriormente China ya había cambiado de tema.
Hillary y su histeria al estilo Sheen La secretaria de Estado de EE.UU. Hillary Clinton ofreció histéricamente “todo tipo de ayuda”– a los políticos occidentales que no se tomaron la molestia de consultar a los que arriesgan sus vidas para derrocar a Gadafi. En una rueda de prensa en Bengasi, el portavoz del nuevo Consejo Nacional Transicional Libio, el abogado de derechos humanos Abdel-Hafidh Ghoga, lo dijo claramente: “Estamos contra toda intervención extranjera o intervención militar en nuestros asuntos internos… Esta revolución será completada por nuestro pueblo.”
El pueblo en cuestión, a propósito, está protegiendo la industria petrolera de Libia, e incluso cargando petroleros gigantes destinados a Europa y China. El pueblo en cuestión no tiene mucho que ver con oportunistas como el ex ministro de justicia nombrado por Gadafi, Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, quien quiere un gobierno provisional que prepare elecciones dentro de tres meses. Además el pueblo en cuestión, como ha informado al-Yazira, está diciendo que no quiere intervención extranjera desde hace una semana.
El Consejo de Bengasi prefiere describirse como la “cara política de la revolución”, que organiza asuntos cívicos, y no instalado como un gobierno interino. Mientras tanto, un comité militar de oficiales desertores trata de establecer un esqueleto de ejército para enviarlo a Trípoli; mediante contactos tribales parece que ya han infiltrado pequeñas células en la vecindad de Trípoli.
Queda por ver si esta dirigencia revolucionaria autoproclamada –elementos fragmentarios de la elite establecida, las tribus y el ejército– será la cara de un nuevo régimen, o si será sobrepasada por activistas más jóvenes, más radicales.
Báñame en hipocresía
En todo caso, nada de esto ha aplacado la histérica narrativa occidental, según la cual hay sólo dos opciones para Libia: convertirse en un Estado fallido o en el próximo refugio de al-Qaida. Qué irónico. Hasta 2008, Libia estaba descartada por Washington por que era un Estado canalla y miembro extraoficial del “eje del mal” que originalmente incluía a Iraq, Irán y Corea del Norte.
Como confirmó hace años el comandante supremo de la OTAN Wesley Clark, Libia estaba en la lista oficial del Pentágono y los neoconservadores para ser eliminarla después de Iraq, junto con Somalia, Sudán, el Líbano, Siria y el santo grial, Irán. Pero en cuanto el astuto Gadafi se convirtió en socio oficial en la “guerra contra el terror”, Libia fue instantáneamente ascendida por el gobierno de George W. Bush al estatus de país civilizado.
En cuanto a que el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU haya decidido unánimemente enviar al régimen de Gadafi ante la Corte Penal Internacional (CPI), vale la pena recordar que la CPI fue creada a mediados de 1998 por 148 países reunidos en Roma. La votación final fue de 120 contra siete. Los siete que votaron contra la CPI, fueron China, Iraq, Israel, Qatar y Yemen, Libia y… EE.UU. A propósito, Israel mató más civiles palestinos en dos semanas alrededor del año nuevo de 2008 que Gadafi en esta última quincena.
Este es un tsunami de hipocresía que provoca inevitablemente la pregunta: ¿Qué sabe Occidente en todo caso del mundo árabe? Recientemente el consejo ejecutivo del Fondo Monetario Internacional (FMI) elogió a cierto país norteafricano por su “ambicioso programa de reforma” y su “fuerte rendimiento macroeconómico y el progreso en el realce del papel del sector privado”. El país en cuestión era Libia. El FMI sólo había olvidado hablar con los principales protagonistas: el pueblo libio.
¿Y qué pensar de Anthony Giddens –el gurú que está tras la “Tercera Vía” de Blair– quien en marzo de 2007 escribió un artículo en The Guardian en el que dice que “Libia no es especialmente represiva” y que “Gadafi parece ser genuinamente popular”? Giddens apostó a que Libia será “en dos o tres décadas una Noruega del norte de África: próspera, igualitaria y progresista”. Puede que Trípoli esté de camino a Oslo, pero sin el clan Gadafi.
EE.UU., Gran Bretaña y Francia maniobran de una forma tan torpe para conseguir la mejor posición después de Gadafi que es casi cómico. Pekín, incluso contra su voluntad, esperó tiempo extra para condenar a Gadafi en la ONU, pero se aseguró de que seguía la iniciativa de países africanos y asiáticos (una acción inteligente, como en “escuchamos las voces del Sur”). Pekín está extremadamente preocupado de que su compleja relación económica con la fuente de petróleo libia no se deshaga (entre todo el ruido de los expatriados en fuga, China evacuó silenciosamente a más de 30.000 trabadores chinos del petróleo y la construcción).
Otra vez es el petróleo, estúpido. Un factor estratégico crucial para Washington es que la Libia después de Gadafi puede representar una bonanza para el Gran Petróleo de EE.UU. –que por el momento está excluido de Libia. Bajo esta perspectiva, Libia se puede considerar otro campo de batalla entre EE.UU. y China. Pero mientras China busca acuerdos de energía y negocios en África, EE.UU. apuesta por sus fuerzas del AFRICOM así como por el progreso de la “cooperación militar” de la OTAN con la Unión Africana.
El movimiento contra Gadafi debe mantenerse en máxima alerta. [Hay que limpiar el movimiento contra Gadaffi y por democracia y libertad de todos los mercenarios infiltrados y luchar por la unidad del pais. Alli empieza la batalla por democracia y libertad.] Es justo argumentar que la mayoría absoluta de los libios está utilizando toda su inventiva y está dispuesta a hacer cualquier sacrificio para construir un país unido, transparente y democrático. Y lo hará por su propia cuenta. Podrá aceptar ayuda humanitaria. En cuanto a la pornografía bélica, tiradla al cubo de la basura de la historia.
Pepe Escobar es autor de Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) y Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. Su último libro es Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009). Puede contactarse con él en: pepeasia@yahoo.com.
(Copyright 2011 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved.
Fuente: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MC03Ak03.html
SEE ENGLISH TRANSLATION IN THE NEXT ARTICLE
Pepe Escobar
Asia Times Online
http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=123481
Traducido del inglés para Rebelión por Germán Leyens
Que no hablen de la “democracia”; Libia, a diferencia de Egipto y Túnez, es una potencia petrolera. Muchas lujosas oficinas de las elites de EE.UU. y Europa se deben de estar regodeando ante la perspectiva de aprovechar la pequeña oportunidad ofrecida por la revolución contra Muamar Gadafi para establecer –o expandir– una cabeza de puente. Estátodo ese petróleo, por cierto. También existe la seducción, cercana, del gasoducto trans-Sáhara, –que cuesta 10.000 millones de dólares y tiene 4.128 kilómetros de largo– desde Nigeria a Argelia, que debe empezar a funcionar en 2015.
Por lo tanto, una vez más, se introduce al mundo en la pornografía de la guerra, a la historia como farsa, a una mala reedición de “conmoción y pavor”. Todos –las Naciones Unidas, EE.UU., la OTAN– ponen el grito en el cielo por una zona de exclusión aérea. Fuerzas especiales están en movimiento, así como barcos de guerra de EE.UU.
Algunos senadores estadounidenses comparan, sin resuello, a Libia con Yugoslavia. Tony “El regreso de los muertos vivientes” Blair ha reaparecido lleno de celo misionero, y el primer ministro británico David Cameron presenta su reflejo exacto, escarnecido debidamente por el hijo de Gadafi, el “modernizador” Saif al-Islam. Hay miedo de las “armas químicas”. Bienvenidos al imperialismo humanitario –un crack.
Wolfowitz y los planes de la OTAN. Como personaje salido directamente de un Scary Movie, el arquitecto de la guerra contra Iraq, Paul Wolfowitz, quiere una zona de exclusión aérea impuesta por la OTAN, mientras la Iniciativa de Política Extranjera –vástago del Proyecto para el Nuevo Siglo Estadounidense– publica una carta abierta al presidente Barack Obama de EE.UU., pidiendo medios militares para convertir Libia en un protectorado regido por la OTAN en nombre de la “comunidad internacional”.
El simple hecho de que toda esta gente esté apoyando a los manifestantes libios hace que todo huela que apesta. El envío del Gran Atemorizador Charlie Sheen a aporrear a Gadafi parecería más verosímil.
El llamado a la cordura de los rusos. Tocó al ministro de exteriores ruso, Sergei Lavrov, introducir una nota de cordura describiendo la noción de una zona de exclusión aérea sobre Libia como “superflua”. Esto significa en la práctica un veto ruso en el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU. Anteriormente China ya había cambiado de tema.
Hillary y su histeria al estilo Sheen La secretaria de Estado de EE.UU. Hillary Clinton ofreció histéricamente “todo tipo de ayuda”– a los políticos occidentales que no se tomaron la molestia de consultar a los que arriesgan sus vidas para derrocar a Gadafi. En una rueda de prensa en Bengasi, el portavoz del nuevo Consejo Nacional Transicional Libio, el abogado de derechos humanos Abdel-Hafidh Ghoga, lo dijo claramente: “Estamos contra toda intervención extranjera o intervención militar en nuestros asuntos internos… Esta revolución será completada por nuestro pueblo.”
El pueblo en cuestión, a propósito, está protegiendo la industria petrolera de Libia, e incluso cargando petroleros gigantes destinados a Europa y China. El pueblo en cuestión no tiene mucho que ver con oportunistas como el ex ministro de justicia nombrado por Gadafi, Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, quien quiere un gobierno provisional que prepare elecciones dentro de tres meses. Además el pueblo en cuestión, como ha informado al-Yazira, está diciendo que no quiere intervención extranjera desde hace una semana.
El Consejo de Bengasi prefiere describirse como la “cara política de la revolución”, que organiza asuntos cívicos, y no instalado como un gobierno interino. Mientras tanto, un comité militar de oficiales desertores trata de establecer un esqueleto de ejército para enviarlo a Trípoli; mediante contactos tribales parece que ya han infiltrado pequeñas células en la vecindad de Trípoli.
Queda por ver si esta dirigencia revolucionaria autoproclamada –elementos fragmentarios de la elite establecida, las tribus y el ejército– será la cara de un nuevo régimen, o si será sobrepasada por activistas más jóvenes, más radicales.
Báñame en hipocresía
En todo caso, nada de esto ha aplacado la histérica narrativa occidental, según la cual hay sólo dos opciones para Libia: convertirse en un Estado fallido o en el próximo refugio de al-Qaida. Qué irónico. Hasta 2008, Libia estaba descartada por Washington por que era un Estado canalla y miembro extraoficial del “eje del mal” que originalmente incluía a Iraq, Irán y Corea del Norte.
Como confirmó hace años el comandante supremo de la OTAN Wesley Clark, Libia estaba en la lista oficial del Pentágono y los neoconservadores para ser eliminarla después de Iraq, junto con Somalia, Sudán, el Líbano, Siria y el santo grial, Irán. Pero en cuanto el astuto Gadafi se convirtió en socio oficial en la “guerra contra el terror”, Libia fue instantáneamente ascendida por el gobierno de George W. Bush al estatus de país civilizado.
En cuanto a que el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU haya decidido unánimemente enviar al régimen de Gadafi ante la Corte Penal Internacional (CPI), vale la pena recordar que la CPI fue creada a mediados de 1998 por 148 países reunidos en Roma. La votación final fue de 120 contra siete. Los siete que votaron contra la CPI, fueron China, Iraq, Israel, Qatar y Yemen, Libia y… EE.UU. A propósito, Israel mató más civiles palestinos en dos semanas alrededor del año nuevo de 2008 que Gadafi en esta última quincena.
Este es un tsunami de hipocresía que provoca inevitablemente la pregunta: ¿Qué sabe Occidente en todo caso del mundo árabe? Recientemente el consejo ejecutivo del Fondo Monetario Internacional (FMI) elogió a cierto país norteafricano por su “ambicioso programa de reforma” y su “fuerte rendimiento macroeconómico y el progreso en el realce del papel del sector privado”. El país en cuestión era Libia. El FMI sólo había olvidado hablar con los principales protagonistas: el pueblo libio.
¿Y qué pensar de Anthony Giddens –el gurú que está tras la “Tercera Vía” de Blair– quien en marzo de 2007 escribió un artículo en The Guardian en el que dice que “Libia no es especialmente represiva” y que “Gadafi parece ser genuinamente popular”? Giddens apostó a que Libia será “en dos o tres décadas una Noruega del norte de África: próspera, igualitaria y progresista”. Puede que Trípoli esté de camino a Oslo, pero sin el clan Gadafi.
EE.UU., Gran Bretaña y Francia maniobran de una forma tan torpe para conseguir la mejor posición después de Gadafi que es casi cómico. Pekín, incluso contra su voluntad, esperó tiempo extra para condenar a Gadafi en la ONU, pero se aseguró de que seguía la iniciativa de países africanos y asiáticos (una acción inteligente, como en “escuchamos las voces del Sur”). Pekín está extremadamente preocupado de que su compleja relación económica con la fuente de petróleo libia no se deshaga (entre todo el ruido de los expatriados en fuga, China evacuó silenciosamente a más de 30.000 trabadores chinos del petróleo y la construcción).
Otra vez es el petróleo, estúpido. Un factor estratégico crucial para Washington es que la Libia después de Gadafi puede representar una bonanza para el Gran Petróleo de EE.UU. –que por el momento está excluido de Libia. Bajo esta perspectiva, Libia se puede considerar otro campo de batalla entre EE.UU. y China. Pero mientras China busca acuerdos de energía y negocios en África, EE.UU. apuesta por sus fuerzas del AFRICOM así como por el progreso de la “cooperación militar” de la OTAN con la Unión Africana.
El movimiento contra Gadafi debe mantenerse en máxima alerta. [Hay que limpiar el movimiento contra Gadaffi y por democracia y libertad de todos los mercenarios infiltrados y luchar por la unidad del pais. Alli empieza la batalla por democracia y libertad.] Es justo argumentar que la mayoría absoluta de los libios está utilizando toda su inventiva y está dispuesta a hacer cualquier sacrificio para construir un país unido, transparente y democrático. Y lo hará por su propia cuenta. Podrá aceptar ayuda humanitaria. En cuanto a la pornografía bélica, tiradla al cubo de la basura de la historia.
Pepe Escobar es autor de Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) y Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. Su último libro es Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009). Puede contactarse con él en: pepeasia@yahoo.com.
(Copyright 2011 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved.
Fuente: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MC03Ak03.html
War and the tsunami of hypocrisy on Libya
War porn is back in Libya
By Pepe Escobar, March 3, 2011
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MC03Ak03.html
Forget "democracy"; Libya, unlike Egypt and Tunisia, is an oil power. Many a plush office of United States and European elites will be salivating at the prospect of taking advantage of a small window of opportunity afforded by the anti-Muammar Gaddafi revolution to establish - or expand - a beachhead. There's all that oil, of course. There's also the allure, close by, of the US$10 billion, 4,128 kilometer long Trans-Saharan gas pipeline from Nigeria to Algeria, expected to be online in 2015.
"Shock and Awe" being covered with impunity again. Thus the world, once again, is reintroduced to war porn, history as farce, a bad rerun of "shock and awe". Everyone - the United Nations, the US, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) - is up in arms about a no-fly zone. Special forces are on the move, as are US warships.
Breathless US senators compare Libya with Yugoslavia. "The Return of the Living Dead" Blair is back in missionary zeal form, its mirror image played by British Prime Minister David Cameron, duly mocked by Gaddafi's son, the "modernizer" Saif al-Islam. There's fear of "chemical weapons". Welcome back to humanitarian imperialism - on crack.
Wolfowitz-NATO plans And like a character straight out of Scary Movie, even war-on-Iraq-architect Paul Wolfowitz wants a NATO-enforced no-fly zone, as the Foreign Policy Initiative - the son of the Project for the New American Century - publishes an open letter to US President Barack Obama demanding military boots to turn Libya into a protectorate ruled by NATO in the name of the "international community".
The mere fact that all these people are supporting the Libya protesters makes it all stink to - over the rainbow - high heavens. Sending His Awesomeness Charlie Sheen to whack Gaddafi would seem more believable.
It was up to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to introduce a note of sanity, describing the notion of a no-fly zone over Libya as "superfluous". This means in practice a Russian veto at the UN Security Council. Earlier, China had already changed the conversation.
Hillary in their Sheen-style hysteria - with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton desperately offering "any kind of assistance" - Western politicians did not bother to consult with the people who are risking their lives to overthrow Gaddafi. At a press conference in Benghazi, the spokesman for the brand new Libyan National Transitional Council, human-rights lawyer Abdel-Hafidh Ghoga, was blunt, "We are against any foreign intervention or military intervention in our internal affairs ... This revolution will be completed by our people."
The people in question, by the way, are protecting Libya's oil industry, and even loading supertankers destined to Europe and China. The people in question do not have much to do with opportunists such as former Gaddafi-appointed justice minister Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, who wants a provisional government to prepare for elections in three months. Moreover, the people in question, as al-Jazeera has reported, have been saying they don't want foreign intervention for a week now.
The Benghazi council prefers to describe itself as the "political face for the revolution", organizing civic affairs, and not established as an interim government. Meanwhile, a military committee of officer defectors is trying to set up a skeleton army to be sent to Tripoli; through tribal contacts, they seem to have already infiltrated small cells into the vicinity of Tripoli.
Whether this self-appointed revolutionary leadership - splinter elements of the established elite, the tribes and the army - will be the face of a new regime, or whether they will be overtaken by younger, more radical activists, remains to be seen.
Shower me with hypocrisy
None of this anyway has placated the hysterical Western narrative, according to which there are only two options for Libya; to become a failed state or the next al-Qaeda haven. How ironic. Up to 2008, Libya was dismissed by Washington as a rogue state and an unofficial member of the "axis of evil" that originally included Iraq, Iran and North Korea.
As former NATO supreme commander Wesley Clark confirmed years ago, Libya was on the Pentagon/neo-conservative official list to be taken out after Iraq, along with Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria and the holy grail, Iran. But as soon as wily Gaddafi became an official partner in the "war on terror", Libya was instantly upgraded by the George W Bush administration to civilized status.
As for the UN Security Council unanimously deciding to refer the Gaddafi regime to the International Criminal Court ICC), it's useful to remember that the ICC was created in mid-1998 by 148 countries meeting in Rome. The final vote was 120 to seven. The seven that voted against the ICC were China, Iraq, Israel, Qatar and Yemen, plus Libya and ... the United States. Incidentally, Israel killed more Palestinian civilians in two weeks around new year 2008 than Gaddafi these past two weeks.
This tsunami of hypocrisy inevitably raises the question; what does the West know about the Arab world anyway? Recently the executive board of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) praised a certain northern African country for its "ambitious reform agenda" and its "strong macroeconomic performance and the progress on enhancing the role of the private sector". The country was Libya. The IMF had only forgotten to talk to the main actors: the Libyan people.
And what to make of Anthony Giddens - the guru behind Blair's "Third Way" - who in March 2007 penned an article to The Guardian saying "Libya is not especially repressive" and "Gaddafi seems genuinely popular"? Giddens bet that Libya "in two or three decades' time would be a Norway of North Africa: prosperous, egalitarian and forward-looking". Tripoli may well be on its way to Oslo - but without the Gaddafi clan.
The US, Britain and France are so awkwardly maneuvering for best post-Gaddafi positioning it's almost comical to watch. Beijing, even against its will, waited until extra time to condemn Gaddafi at the UN, but made sure it was following the lead of African and Asian countries (smart move, as in "we listen to the voices of the South"). Beijing is extremely worried that its complex economic relationship with oil source Libya does not unravel (amid all the hoopla about fleeing expats, China quietly evacuated no less than 30,000 Chinese workers in the oil and construction business).
Once again; it's the oil, stupid. A crucial strategic factor for Washington is that post-Gaddafi Libya may represent a bonanza for US Big Oil - which for the moment has been kept away from Libya. Under this perspective, Libya may be considered as yet one more battleground between the US and China. But while China goes for energy and business deals in Africa, the US bets on its forces in AFRICOM as well as NATO advancing "military cooperation" with the African Union.
The anti-Gaddafi movement must remain on maximum alert. It's fair to argue the absolute majority of Libyans are using all their resourcefulness and are willing to undergo any sacrifice to build a united, transparent and democratic country. And they will do it on their own. They may accept humanitarian help. As for war porn, throw it in the dustbin of history.
Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His new book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).
By Pepe Escobar, March 3, 2011
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MC03Ak03.html
Forget "democracy"; Libya, unlike Egypt and Tunisia, is an oil power. Many a plush office of United States and European elites will be salivating at the prospect of taking advantage of a small window of opportunity afforded by the anti-Muammar Gaddafi revolution to establish - or expand - a beachhead. There's all that oil, of course. There's also the allure, close by, of the US$10 billion, 4,128 kilometer long Trans-Saharan gas pipeline from Nigeria to Algeria, expected to be online in 2015.
"Shock and Awe" being covered with impunity again. Thus the world, once again, is reintroduced to war porn, history as farce, a bad rerun of "shock and awe". Everyone - the United Nations, the US, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) - is up in arms about a no-fly zone. Special forces are on the move, as are US warships.
Breathless US senators compare Libya with Yugoslavia. "The Return of the Living Dead" Blair is back in missionary zeal form, its mirror image played by British Prime Minister David Cameron, duly mocked by Gaddafi's son, the "modernizer" Saif al-Islam. There's fear of "chemical weapons". Welcome back to humanitarian imperialism - on crack.
Wolfowitz-NATO plans And like a character straight out of Scary Movie, even war-on-Iraq-architect Paul Wolfowitz wants a NATO-enforced no-fly zone, as the Foreign Policy Initiative - the son of the Project for the New American Century - publishes an open letter to US President Barack Obama demanding military boots to turn Libya into a protectorate ruled by NATO in the name of the "international community".
The mere fact that all these people are supporting the Libya protesters makes it all stink to - over the rainbow - high heavens. Sending His Awesomeness Charlie Sheen to whack Gaddafi would seem more believable.
It was up to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to introduce a note of sanity, describing the notion of a no-fly zone over Libya as "superfluous". This means in practice a Russian veto at the UN Security Council. Earlier, China had already changed the conversation.
Hillary in their Sheen-style hysteria - with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton desperately offering "any kind of assistance" - Western politicians did not bother to consult with the people who are risking their lives to overthrow Gaddafi. At a press conference in Benghazi, the spokesman for the brand new Libyan National Transitional Council, human-rights lawyer Abdel-Hafidh Ghoga, was blunt, "We are against any foreign intervention or military intervention in our internal affairs ... This revolution will be completed by our people."
The people in question, by the way, are protecting Libya's oil industry, and even loading supertankers destined to Europe and China. The people in question do not have much to do with opportunists such as former Gaddafi-appointed justice minister Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, who wants a provisional government to prepare for elections in three months. Moreover, the people in question, as al-Jazeera has reported, have been saying they don't want foreign intervention for a week now.
The Benghazi council prefers to describe itself as the "political face for the revolution", organizing civic affairs, and not established as an interim government. Meanwhile, a military committee of officer defectors is trying to set up a skeleton army to be sent to Tripoli; through tribal contacts, they seem to have already infiltrated small cells into the vicinity of Tripoli.
Whether this self-appointed revolutionary leadership - splinter elements of the established elite, the tribes and the army - will be the face of a new regime, or whether they will be overtaken by younger, more radical activists, remains to be seen.
Shower me with hypocrisy
None of this anyway has placated the hysterical Western narrative, according to which there are only two options for Libya; to become a failed state or the next al-Qaeda haven. How ironic. Up to 2008, Libya was dismissed by Washington as a rogue state and an unofficial member of the "axis of evil" that originally included Iraq, Iran and North Korea.
As former NATO supreme commander Wesley Clark confirmed years ago, Libya was on the Pentagon/neo-conservative official list to be taken out after Iraq, along with Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria and the holy grail, Iran. But as soon as wily Gaddafi became an official partner in the "war on terror", Libya was instantly upgraded by the George W Bush administration to civilized status.
As for the UN Security Council unanimously deciding to refer the Gaddafi regime to the International Criminal Court ICC), it's useful to remember that the ICC was created in mid-1998 by 148 countries meeting in Rome. The final vote was 120 to seven. The seven that voted against the ICC were China, Iraq, Israel, Qatar and Yemen, plus Libya and ... the United States. Incidentally, Israel killed more Palestinian civilians in two weeks around new year 2008 than Gaddafi these past two weeks.
This tsunami of hypocrisy inevitably raises the question; what does the West know about the Arab world anyway? Recently the executive board of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) praised a certain northern African country for its "ambitious reform agenda" and its "strong macroeconomic performance and the progress on enhancing the role of the private sector". The country was Libya. The IMF had only forgotten to talk to the main actors: the Libyan people.
And what to make of Anthony Giddens - the guru behind Blair's "Third Way" - who in March 2007 penned an article to The Guardian saying "Libya is not especially repressive" and "Gaddafi seems genuinely popular"? Giddens bet that Libya "in two or three decades' time would be a Norway of North Africa: prosperous, egalitarian and forward-looking". Tripoli may well be on its way to Oslo - but without the Gaddafi clan.
The US, Britain and France are so awkwardly maneuvering for best post-Gaddafi positioning it's almost comical to watch. Beijing, even against its will, waited until extra time to condemn Gaddafi at the UN, but made sure it was following the lead of African and Asian countries (smart move, as in "we listen to the voices of the South"). Beijing is extremely worried that its complex economic relationship with oil source Libya does not unravel (amid all the hoopla about fleeing expats, China quietly evacuated no less than 30,000 Chinese workers in the oil and construction business).
Once again; it's the oil, stupid. A crucial strategic factor for Washington is that post-Gaddafi Libya may represent a bonanza for US Big Oil - which for the moment has been kept away from Libya. Under this perspective, Libya may be considered as yet one more battleground between the US and China. But while China goes for energy and business deals in Africa, the US bets on its forces in AFRICOM as well as NATO advancing "military cooperation" with the African Union.
The anti-Gaddafi movement must remain on maximum alert. It's fair to argue the absolute majority of Libyans are using all their resourcefulness and are willing to undergo any sacrifice to build a united, transparent and democratic country. And they will do it on their own. They may accept humanitarian help. As for war porn, throw it in the dustbin of history.
Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His new book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).
LIBYA n THE WORLD BETWEEN PEACE n WAR
LIBYA n THE WORLD BETWEEN PEACE n WARHAZ, march 3, 2011
PEACE n WAR
1. As soon as Hugo Chavez made the proposal for peace, the speculation on oil prices starts falling down.
Oil Drops Most in a Week in New York on Libya Peace Plan ReportBloomberg. BusinessWeek. By Christian Schmollinger. March 3 (Bloomberg) -- Oil dropped the most in a week in New York after the Arab League said it is studying ways to end the crisis in Libya that has cut crude supplies from Africa’s third-biggest producer. Crude fell as much as 1.8 percent, the biggest intraday decline in a week, after the Wall Street Journal reported that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez called Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi and offered to help create a multinational mediation commission. (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-03-03/crude-oil-drops-most-in-a-week-on-libya-crisis-resolution-plan.html)
1.1 Before the peace proposal, in March the 2nd Gaddafi attacks on rebels sparked fears that the troops loyal to his regime will recapture the key oil ports. However “The patchwork opposition continues to control swathes of eastern and western Libya including Benghazi and some oil installations. Gaddafi remains firmly in control of the capital Tripoli… There have also been reports that Mr Gaddafi and the president of the Arab League are considering a plan that would allow an international peacekeeping mission to mediate the crisis.
The plan, put forward by Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, would involve a commission from Latin America, Europe and the Middle East trying to reach a negotiated outcome between Mr Gaddafi and rebel forces.
Mr Chavez says the international community should seek a non-military solution to the conflict and accuses the United States of exaggerating Libya's problems to justify an invasion.
Clinton double speaking on "No-fly zone". She hide the fact that the US administration was getting ready to bomb Libya, divide the contry and take control of oil reserves without regard of human cost. All this with the complicity of ICC.
"US secretary of state Hillary Clinton says any such decision is a "long way off" and that NATO officials remained divided.
She has also warned any intervention would be "controversial" in the Arab world and that the Libyan opposition wanted to be seen to be dislodging Mr Gaddafi's forces on their own.
Mr Rudd has urged the United Nations to consider putting a no-fly zone in place over Libya, and says measures should be taken to prevent the Libyan airforce from bombing the civilian population.
"The bottom line is the Gaddafi regime is not finished”.
Speaking live on state television, Mr Gaddafi warned the "battle will be very, very long" if there is any intervention by foreign powers.
"If the Americans or the West want to enter Libya they must know it will be hell and a bloodbath - worse than Iraq."(http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/03/3154574.htm)
Without doubts, the rebels are heavily armed by foreign countries (it is being said that three dutch mercenaries have been captured the Gadaffi loyal army and that this leader warned foreign powers of "another Vietnam" if they continue intervening in the popular uprising against his 41-year rule.
2. Gaddafi n the Arab League accepted the peace plan The more recent news from the major stock market company in India:
“Libya, Arab League OK with peace plan” Shares of Punj Lloyd rose as much as 5.5 percent after the Libyan leader Muammar Gadaffi and the president of the Arab League agreed to a peace plan from Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez to end the crisis in the North African country, three dealers said. (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/stocks/stocks-in-news/punj-lloyd-up-libya-arab-league-ok-peace-plan/articleshow/7617650.cms)
3. The real meaning of No-fly zone. Immediately, the mass media in the US announced US plan to start bombing Libya under the pretext of Human Rights with the complicity of the ICC that is accusing Libya of committing crimes against humanity. War appears to be the way of revamping the US economy. Rachel Maddow in MSNBC made a clear statement on the meaning of “free fly zone on Libya”: Not transcript open http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#41879822
3.1 The US is arming the opposition rebels against Gaddafi.
U.S. assault ships clear Suez, enter Mediterranean.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/02/us-libya-usa-ships-idUSTRE72169F20110302
WASHINGTON | Wed Mar 2, 2011
Reuters) - Two U.S. amphibious assault ships have reached the Mediterranean Sea, a U.S. official said on Wednesday, as Washington intensifies pressure on Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi to end his four-decade rule.
The USS Ponce and the USS Kearsarge, assault ships that typically carry Marines, cleared the Suez Canal from the Red Sea and entered the Mediterranean, the official said on condition of anonymity.
The United States also has an aircraft carrier, the USS Enterprise, in the Red Sea but military officials have not said whether it will be sent to the Mediterranean.
The Obama administration has said all options are on the table to deal with the Libya crisis but the Pentagon may be reluctant to launch any new military action as it grapples with the costs of ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
(Reporting by Missy Ryan; Editing by Sandra Maler)
3.2 The war ahead. Barcos de guerra de Estados Unidos se dirigen a Libia. Demcracy Now! Fuente: http://www.democracynow.org/es/2011/3/2/titulares#6
Dos barcos de guerra estadounidenses ingresaron en aguas del Mediterráneo procedentes del Canal de Suez en dirección a Libia por orden del Secretario de Defensa Robert Gates. En Washington, la Secretaria de Estado Hillary Clinton dijo que Estados Unidos no ha descartado una intervención militar.
La Secretaria Clinton dijo: "No descartamos ninguna opción en tanto que el gobierno libio siga apuntando sus armas a su propio pueblo. Toda la región está cambiando y una respuesta firme y estratégica de Estados Unidos es fundamental. En los próximos años, Libia se podría convertir en una democracia pacífica o de lo contrario, enfrentar una prolongada guerra civil o caer en el caos. Los riesgos son altos”.
4. The social costs of the war will be transferred to the periphery. At world level, those countries that are importing oil and gas will face a major problem: inflation, higher food prices, and civil unrest. Trade unions either public and private will submit their claims for higher wages to keep up with rising prices, which led to street confrontation In India, for instance, one of the key corporation advising the government (Chief Economic Advisor Kaushik Basu) said the government will have not option but free diesel if crude touches $140-150 (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/7620309.cms). Global crude oil prices are at the highest level since 2008, touching $ 116 per barrel in March 1st.What the other choices?. Basu said “if international crude oil prices continue to remain high for a longer time the government will have to make a tough choice between hiking diesel and cooking fuel prices and shelling out more on oil subsidies to companies.”.
He did not mention the pollution cost-effects on people’s health as the result of using diesel, nor the cuts on social expenses in the national budget if the government has to create subsidies to companies in the business of oil prices. Like in India, similar situation will be face by other emerging economies. In the US where civil unrest already start and Europe is at the brink of fit, they will use fiscal policies and printing more money to face the situation, with good effects in the short term but very dangerous one in mid and longer terms. In other words, the social costs of the war will be transferred to the periphery in the global market.
PEACE n WAR
1. As soon as Hugo Chavez made the proposal for peace, the speculation on oil prices starts falling down.
Oil Drops Most in a Week in New York on Libya Peace Plan ReportBloomberg. BusinessWeek. By Christian Schmollinger. March 3 (Bloomberg) -- Oil dropped the most in a week in New York after the Arab League said it is studying ways to end the crisis in Libya that has cut crude supplies from Africa’s third-biggest producer. Crude fell as much as 1.8 percent, the biggest intraday decline in a week, after the Wall Street Journal reported that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez called Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi and offered to help create a multinational mediation commission. (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-03-03/crude-oil-drops-most-in-a-week-on-libya-crisis-resolution-plan.html)
1.1 Before the peace proposal, in March the 2nd Gaddafi attacks on rebels sparked fears that the troops loyal to his regime will recapture the key oil ports. However “The patchwork opposition continues to control swathes of eastern and western Libya including Benghazi and some oil installations. Gaddafi remains firmly in control of the capital Tripoli… There have also been reports that Mr Gaddafi and the president of the Arab League are considering a plan that would allow an international peacekeeping mission to mediate the crisis.
The plan, put forward by Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, would involve a commission from Latin America, Europe and the Middle East trying to reach a negotiated outcome between Mr Gaddafi and rebel forces.
Mr Chavez says the international community should seek a non-military solution to the conflict and accuses the United States of exaggerating Libya's problems to justify an invasion.
Clinton double speaking on "No-fly zone". She hide the fact that the US administration was getting ready to bomb Libya, divide the contry and take control of oil reserves without regard of human cost. All this with the complicity of ICC.
"US secretary of state Hillary Clinton says any such decision is a "long way off" and that NATO officials remained divided.
She has also warned any intervention would be "controversial" in the Arab world and that the Libyan opposition wanted to be seen to be dislodging Mr Gaddafi's forces on their own.
Mr Rudd has urged the United Nations to consider putting a no-fly zone in place over Libya, and says measures should be taken to prevent the Libyan airforce from bombing the civilian population.
"The bottom line is the Gaddafi regime is not finished”.
Speaking live on state television, Mr Gaddafi warned the "battle will be very, very long" if there is any intervention by foreign powers.
"If the Americans or the West want to enter Libya they must know it will be hell and a bloodbath - worse than Iraq."(http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/03/3154574.htm)
Without doubts, the rebels are heavily armed by foreign countries (it is being said that three dutch mercenaries have been captured the Gadaffi loyal army and that this leader warned foreign powers of "another Vietnam" if they continue intervening in the popular uprising against his 41-year rule.
2. Gaddafi n the Arab League accepted the peace plan The more recent news from the major stock market company in India:
“Libya, Arab League OK with peace plan” Shares of Punj Lloyd rose as much as 5.5 percent after the Libyan leader Muammar Gadaffi and the president of the Arab League agreed to a peace plan from Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez to end the crisis in the North African country, three dealers said. (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/stocks/stocks-in-news/punj-lloyd-up-libya-arab-league-ok-peace-plan/articleshow/7617650.cms)
3. The real meaning of No-fly zone. Immediately, the mass media in the US announced US plan to start bombing Libya under the pretext of Human Rights with the complicity of the ICC that is accusing Libya of committing crimes against humanity. War appears to be the way of revamping the US economy. Rachel Maddow in MSNBC made a clear statement on the meaning of “free fly zone on Libya”: Not transcript open http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#41879822
3.1 The US is arming the opposition rebels against Gaddafi.
U.S. assault ships clear Suez, enter Mediterranean.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/02/us-libya-usa-ships-idUSTRE72169F20110302
WASHINGTON | Wed Mar 2, 2011
Reuters) - Two U.S. amphibious assault ships have reached the Mediterranean Sea, a U.S. official said on Wednesday, as Washington intensifies pressure on Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi to end his four-decade rule.
The USS Ponce and the USS Kearsarge, assault ships that typically carry Marines, cleared the Suez Canal from the Red Sea and entered the Mediterranean, the official said on condition of anonymity.
The United States also has an aircraft carrier, the USS Enterprise, in the Red Sea but military officials have not said whether it will be sent to the Mediterranean.
The Obama administration has said all options are on the table to deal with the Libya crisis but the Pentagon may be reluctant to launch any new military action as it grapples with the costs of ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
(Reporting by Missy Ryan; Editing by Sandra Maler)
3.2 The war ahead. Barcos de guerra de Estados Unidos se dirigen a Libia. Demcracy Now! Fuente: http://www.democracynow.org/es/2011/3/2/titulares#6
Dos barcos de guerra estadounidenses ingresaron en aguas del Mediterráneo procedentes del Canal de Suez en dirección a Libia por orden del Secretario de Defensa Robert Gates. En Washington, la Secretaria de Estado Hillary Clinton dijo que Estados Unidos no ha descartado una intervención militar.
La Secretaria Clinton dijo: "No descartamos ninguna opción en tanto que el gobierno libio siga apuntando sus armas a su propio pueblo. Toda la región está cambiando y una respuesta firme y estratégica de Estados Unidos es fundamental. En los próximos años, Libia se podría convertir en una democracia pacífica o de lo contrario, enfrentar una prolongada guerra civil o caer en el caos. Los riesgos son altos”.
4. The social costs of the war will be transferred to the periphery. At world level, those countries that are importing oil and gas will face a major problem: inflation, higher food prices, and civil unrest. Trade unions either public and private will submit their claims for higher wages to keep up with rising prices, which led to street confrontation In India, for instance, one of the key corporation advising the government (Chief Economic Advisor Kaushik Basu) said the government will have not option but free diesel if crude touches $140-150 (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/7620309.cms). Global crude oil prices are at the highest level since 2008, touching $ 116 per barrel in March 1st.What the other choices?. Basu said “if international crude oil prices continue to remain high for a longer time the government will have to make a tough choice between hiking diesel and cooking fuel prices and shelling out more on oil subsidies to companies.”.
He did not mention the pollution cost-effects on people’s health as the result of using diesel, nor the cuts on social expenses in the national budget if the government has to create subsidies to companies in the business of oil prices. Like in India, similar situation will be face by other emerging economies. In the US where civil unrest already start and Europe is at the brink of fit, they will use fiscal policies and printing more money to face the situation, with good effects in the short term but very dangerous one in mid and longer terms. In other words, the social costs of the war will be transferred to the periphery in the global market.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)