The Libya thread

[JackRiddler]

.

June 9, 2011


Text of Reported Gaddafi Letter to US Congress, White House

Source http://www.politico.com/static/PPM187_pdf.html

[linebreaks due to PDF]

Dear SirsIMadam,

The Government of Libya Jamahiriya reviewed with great interest the deliberations of the
Congress on the issue of the participation of the United States of America in NATO's aggression
against Libya, and I want express my sincere gratitude for your thoughtful discussion of the
issues. We are confident that history will see the wisdom of your Country in debating these
issues. As we have constantly expressed in the past, we are keen to establish permanent and
friendly relations with the United States. NATO's unjustified hostilities have killed Libyan
civilians and destroyed civilian's installations in clear violation of Security Council Resolution
1973.

It is regrettable that the Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973 were premised on media
distortion of the facts and were lead by France in particular who seeks to advance its own
commercial interests and to thwart the expansion of the expansion of America's commercial
interests in the Libyan market. Clearly France's actions are motivated by its desire to seize Libyan
oil and to take advantage of the strategic location of Libya.

The Libyan authorities have repeatedly stated the hostilities in Libya are an internal affair and the
UN Security Council Resolutions numbered 1970 and 1973 are ultra vires acts of the United
Nations because they sanction intervention by NATO in an internal domestic event. Further,
however, assuming that the UN Security resolutions were warranted, NATO and its allies,
including Qatar and the UAE, have exceeded the authority granted under the two Security
Council resolutions. Nonetheless, Libya has consistently indicated to the international community
its willingness for a cease fire and the deployment of international observers to monitor it. And
we have also called for the cessation of military operations by NATO to provide the opportunity
to address the crisis by political rather than military means. To that end Libya has also called for
an emergency session of the U.N. Security Council to consider the abuses and violations in the
implementation by NATO of UN Resolution 1973. Unfortunately Libya has not received the
desired response so far from the UN or NATO and its allies. Additionally the United Nations has
not permitted our representative to the United Nations to enter the United States to commence
cease fire negotiations directly with the appropriate parties - especially the United States.

There is no doubt that the utilization of military means, rather than political means, to address the
political situation will not be conducive to achieving security and stability in Libya, and, as
reflected in the US Congressional deliberations, NATO's action's do not advance the security of
the United States of America, but rather risk greater instability by allowing AQ and Islamic
extremists to gain a greater foothold in North Africa with the possible consequences of North
Africa becoming more like Afghanistan and Iraq. It should be clear that Libya is unified in its
opposition to extremist elements and in recent years we have fully cooperated with US and
International authorities to this end.

Further, it is difficult for Libya to understand that the air strikes and naval bombardment by
NATO and the killing of Libyan civilians and the destruction of the infrastructure of our
Country- especially in the light of the Libyan security forces past efforts to eliminate AQ and
Islamic extremists.

Libya has been keen for years to establish a special relationship with the United States of
America based on mutual respect and mutual benefit. We were the first Country to issue an arrest
warrant for Bin Laden and the first Country that stood in solidarity with the United States
regarding the events of 911 1 and this horrific terrorist attack on the Twin Towers. We also
expressed our readiness to provide any aid requested by the United States, and further we
provided the US with important and useful information with regard to terrorist and extremist
groups in North Africa and Afghanistan, and cooperated fully with the International Community
in combating terrorist activities. We are convinced that fighting terrorism on all fronts requires
the cooperation of all States and Governments, and we are keen to prevent the return of terrorism
to the region and have voluntarily renounced the use of WMD and in particular, our nuclear
progamme, and have delivered related equipment and materials is to both America and Russia.

Based on our intelligence and the detailed files we have gathered on the members of the TNC, we
believe they are a group of individuals with extremist connections, the majority of which are not
native to Libya, and have been encouraged by the French who gave the TNC recognition with the
main purpose of helping France to meet its commercial objectives of gaining control of Libyan
oil at the expense, I must add, of America.

It is very important for the Congress of the United States to recognize that AQ and Islamic
extremists dominate the Eastern Region (Benghazi & Derna) and that these individuals have
been, in the main, responsible for committing horrific atrocities against Libyan citizens. Further,
as the US intelligence agencies know very well, Abdel Hakim Alhassadi, and Sufian Gumo, who
control the rebel combat units in Derna, are followers of Osama A1 Sulabi. We have intelligence
that suggests that both AQ members and weapons are being transported from Libya to Algeria
Mali and the Sahara and even to Gaza; this constitutes a serious threat to the region, the world
and particularly to the security of the United States.

The Libyan people and its senior official are committed to exercising power through a direct
democracy which will choose the senior officials who will provide the administration of the
Libyan Government and take care of its own affairs. This effort was begun by the Libyan
People's Congress in Jan 20 1 1. Further we welcome the possibility of a fact finding committee of
the US Congress to enquire and observe the true democratic sincerity of all Libyan men and
woman and the leadership of our Country, as well as investigate claims that have been made
about systematic violations inside Libya during this tragic civil war.

Many of the violations and reported civilian deaths are greatly regretted by all us Libyans but
they are in many instances reported untruthfully- more as a result of exaggerations of the
reportage of the international media, particularly Al Jazeera.

We are counting on the United States Congress to its continued investigation of the military
activities of NATO and its allies to confirm what we believe is a clear violation of UN Security
Council Resolution 1973 and further that these activities have resulted in the death of over 700
Libyan civilians, the destruction of Libyan infrastructure and wreaked havoc on Libyan civilian
society. Such unauthorized intervention is inappropriate and illegal interference in what is
essentially a Libyan civil war.

We therefore urge a cease fire, the funding of humanitarian relief and assistance in fostering and
furthering accommodation between the internal parties within Libya that are at odds.

We are ready sit at the table with appropriate internal interlocutors lead by the United States.
Let's stop the destruction and begin the negotiations to find a peaceful solution for Libya.

I appeal to you, as the great Democracy, to assist us to determine our future as a people. Our
Nation must not be colonized again by Europeans. Our Country must not be divided again.
Help us to achieve our own self determination.

Peace be upon you

Col 1 Muammar Gaddafi
Commander of the Great Revolution
Thursday, June 09,2011

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm? ... 2327B1731E

Qadhafi pens letter to Congress

By: Jennifer Epstein
June 10, 2011 02:51 PM EDT

In what appears to be a letter from Muammar Qadhafi to members of Congress, the Libyan leader calls on the United States to take the lead in negotiating a cease fire, while also flattering Congress for its “thoughtful discussion of the issues” on Libya.

Qadhafi appeals to the United States “as the great Democracy, to assist us to determine our future as a people” in the letter and promises to implement reforms if he has the support of Americans behind him. It’s his hope he says, to “exercise[e] power through a direct democracy which will choose the senior officials who will provide the administration of the Libyan Government and take care of its own affairs.”

Sent to congressional leaders and the White House, the three-page letter comes as reports continue to emerge suggesting that Qadhafi is looking for a way to end the fighting in Libya and as NATO looks for ways to scale back its activity there, which began in March. In the letter, he asks for “a cease fire, the funding of humanitarian relief and assistance in fostering and furthering accommodation between the parties within Libya that are at odds.”

In exchange, Qadhafi promises that he’ll allow a congressional fact-finding team into the country to examine humanitarian conditions and to “observe the true democratic sincerity of all Libya men and woman (sic).” The team would also be able to investigate “claims that have been made about systematic violations inside Libya during this tragic civil war.”

The letter also includes passages in which Qadhafi seeks to flatter his recipients, writing: “I want to express my sincere gratitude for your thoughtful discussion of the issues. We are confident that history will see the wisdom of your country in debating these issues.”

Recipients of the letter aren’t spending much time responding to the letter.

“We have received a letter but we’re not spending much time trying to confirm authenticity because we don’t much care what he has to say unless it includes a resignation,” said Jon Summers, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) communications director.

House Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) spokesman Brendan Buck said in a statement that “[if] authentic, this incoherent letter only reinforces that Qadhafi must go. There’s no disagreement about that.”

“That’s why so many Americans have questions – which the White House refuses to answer – about the administration committing U.S. resources to an operation that doesn’t make his removal a goal,” he said.


© 2011 Capitol News Company, LLC

[Laodicean]

Greenwald:

In a pure coincidence, Gaddafi impeded U.S. oil interests before the war

[8bitagent]

I just saw the new film limitless, and one of the subplots involved secret corporate energy deals with Libya

[JackRiddler]

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... index.html

Saturday, Jun 11, 2011 06:12 ET

In a pure coincidence, Gaddafi impeded U.S. oil interests before the war

By Glenn Greenwald

When the war in Libya began, the U.S. government convinced a large number of war supporters that we were there to achieve the very limited goal of creating a no-fly zone in Benghazi to protect civilians from air attacks, while President Obama specifically vowed that "broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake." This no-fly zone was created in the first week, yet now, almost three months later, the war drags on without any end in sight, and NATO is no longer even hiding what has long been obvious: that its real goal is exactly the one Obama vowed would not be pursued -- regime change through the use of military force. We're in Libya to forcibly remove Gaddafi from power and replace him with a regime that we like better, i.e., one that is more accommodating to the interests of the West. That's not even a debatable proposition at this point.

What I suppose is debatable, in the most generous sense of that term, is our motive in doing this. Why -- at a time when American political leaders feel compelled to advocate politically radioactive budget cuts to reduce the deficit and when polls show Americans solidly and increasingly opposed to the war -- would the U.S. Government continue to spend huge sums of money to fight this war? Why is President Obama willing to endure self-evidently valid accusations -- even from his own Party -- that he's fighting an illegal war by brazenly flouting the requirements for Congressional approval? Why would Defense Secretary Gates risk fissures by so angrily and publicly chiding NATO allies for failing to build more Freedom Bombs to devote to the war? And why would we, to use the President's phrase, "stand idly by" while numerous other regimes -- including our close allies in Bahrain and Yemen and the one in Syria -- engage in attacks on their own people at least as heinous as those threatened by Gaddafi, yet be so devoted to targeting the Libyan leader?

Whatever the answers to those mysteries, no responsible or Serious person, by definition, would suggest that any of this -- from today's Washington Post -- has anything to do with it:

The relationship between Gaddafi and the U.S. oil industry as a whole was odd. In 2004, President George W. Bush unexpectedly lifted economic sanctions on Libya in return for its renunciation of nuclear weapons and terrorism. There was a burst of optimism among American oil executives eager to return to the Libyan oil fields they had been forced to abandon two decades earlier. . . .

Yet even before armed conflict drove the U.S. companies out of Libya this year, their relations with Gaddafi had soured. The Libyan leader demanded tough contract terms. He sought big bonus payments up front. Moreover, upset that he was not getting more U.S. government respect and recognition for his earlier concessions, he pressured the oil companies to influence U.S. policies. . . .

When Gaddafi made his deal with Bush in 2004, he had hoped that returning foreign oil companies would help boost Libya’s output . . . The U.S. government also encouraged American oil companies to go back to Libya. . . .

The companies needed little encouragement. Libya has some of the biggest and most proven oil reserves -- 43.6 billion barrels -- outside Saudi Arabia, and some of the best drilling prospects. . . . Throughout this time, oil prices kept rising, whetting the appetite for greater supplies of Libya's unusually "sweet" and "light," or high-quality, crude oil.

By the time Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited in 2008, U.S. joint ventures accounted for 510,000 of Libya's 1.7 million barrels a day of production, a State Department cable said. . . .

But all was not well. By November 2007, a State Department cable noted "growing evidence of Libyan resource nationalism." It noted that in his 2006 speech marking the founding of his regime, Gaddafi said: "Oil companies are controlled by foreigners who have made millions from them. Now, Libyans must take their place to profit from this money." His son made similar remarks in 2007.

Oil companies had been forced to give their local subsidiaries Libyan names, the cable said. . . .

The entire article is worth reading, as it details how Gaddafi has progressively impeded the interests of U.S. and Western oil companies by demanding a greater share of profits and other concessions, to the point where some of those corporations were deciding that it may no longer be profitable or worthwhile to drill for oil there. But now, in a pure coincidence, there is hope on the horizon for these Western oil companies, thanks to the war profoundly humanitarian action being waged by the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner and his nation's closest Western allies:

But Libya's oil production has foundered, sagging to about 1.5 million barrels a day by early this year before unrest broke out. The big oil companies, several of which had drilled dry holes, felt that Libya was not making the best exploration prospects available. One major company privately said that it was on the verge of a discovery but that unrest cut short the project.

With the country torn by fighting, the big international oil companies are treading carefully, unwilling to throw their lot behind Gaddafi or the rebel coalition.

Yet when representatives of the rebel coalition in Benghazi spoke to the U.S.-Libya Business Council in Washington four weeks ago, representatives from ConocoPhillips and other oil firms attended, according to Richard Mintz, a public relations expert at the Harbour Group, which represents the Benghazi coalition. In another meeting in Washington, Ali Tarhouni, the lead economic policymaker in Benghazi, said oil contracts would be honored, Mintz said.

"Now you can figure out who’s going to win, and the name is not Gaddafi," Saleri said. "Certain things about the mosaic are taking shape. The Western companies are positioning themselves."

"Five years from now," he added, "Libyan production is going to be higher than right now and investments are going to come in."

I have two points to make about all this:

(1) The reason -- the only reason -- we know about any of this is because WikiLeaks (and, allegedly, Bradley Manning) disclosed to the world the diplomatic cables which detail these conflicts. Virtually the entirety of the Post article -- like most significant revelations over the last 12 months, especially in the Middle East and North Africa -- are based exclusively on WikiLeaks disclosures. That's why we know about Gaddafi's increasingly strident demands for the "Libyanization" of his country's resource exploitation. That's how we know about most of the things we've learned about the world's most powerful political and corporate factions over the last 12 months. Is there anything easier to understand than why U.S. Government officials are so eager to punish WikiLeaks and deter future transparency projects of this sort?

(2) Is there anyone -- anywhere -- who actually believes that these aren't the driving considerations in why we're waging this war in Libya? After almost three months of fighting and bombing -- when we're so far from the original justifications and commitments that they're barely a distant memory -- is there anyone who still believes that humanitarian concerns are what brought us and other Western powers to the war in Libya? Is there anything more obvious -- as the world's oil supplies rapidly diminish -- than the fact that our prime objective is to remove Gaddafi and install a regime that is a far more reliable servant to Western oil interests, and that protecting civilians was the justifying pretext for this war, not the purpose? If (as is quite possible) the new regime turns out to be as oppressive as Gaddafi but far more subservient to Western corporations (like, say, our good Saudi friends), does anyone think we're going to care in the slightest or (at most) do anything other than pay occasional lip service to protesting it? Does anyone think we're going to care about The Libyan People if they're being oppressed or brutalized by a reliably pro-Western successor to Gaddafi?

In 2006, George Bush instructed us that there was a "responsible" and an "irresponsible" way for citizens to debate the Iraq War: the "responsible" way was to suggest that there may be better tactics for waging the war more effectively, while the "irresponsible" way was to outrageously insinuate that perhaps oil or Israel or deceit played a role in the invasion:

Yet we must remember there is a difference between responsible and irresponsible debate -- and it's even more important to conduct this debate responsibly when American troops are risking their lives overseas.

The American people know the difference between responsible and irresponsible debate when they see it. They know the difference between honest critics who question the way the war is being prosecuted and partisan critics who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil, or because of Israel, or because we misled the American people. And they know the difference between a loyal opposition that points out what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.

Earlier this month, Hillary Clinton hosted a meeting of top executives from a wide array of corporations -- Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Halliburton, GE, Chevron, Lockheed Martin, Citigroup, Occidental Petroleum, etc. etc. -- to plot how to exploit "economic opportunities in the new Iraq." And one WikiLeaks "diplomatic" cable after the next reveals constant government efforts to promote the interests of Western corporations in the developing world. Nonetheless, the very notion that the U.S. wages wars not for humanitarian or freedom-spreading purposes, but rather to exploit the resources of other nations for its own large corporations, is deeply "irresponsible" and unSerious. As usual, the ideas stigmatized with the most potent taboos are the ones that are the most obviously true.

It's certainly possible to contend reasonably that (as was true for Iraq) removing a heinous dictator and other humanitarian outcomes will be the incidental by-product of our war in Libya even if not its purpose (although, as was also true in Iraq, one would need to see the regime that replaces Gaddafi to know if that's true). And it's fine -- or at least candid -- to argue, as Ann Coulter often does, that "of course we should go to war for oil. . . .We need oil. That's a good reason to go to war." But to believe that humanitarianism (protection of Libya civilians) was why we went to war in Libya requires a blindness so willful and complete that it's genuinely difficult to describe.

UPDATE: To clarify what I believe was already clear: the point here is not that the U.S. invaded Libya in order to steal its oil. That's not the West's modus operandi. The point is that what distinguishes Gaddafi and made him a war target is not the claimed humanitarian rationale (he brutalized his own people) any more than "Saddam's gassing his own people" (25 years ago when he was a close American ally) was the reason the U.S. invaded Iraq. Instead, what distinguished Gaddafi and made him a war target was that he had become insufficiently compliant -- an unreliable and unstable servant to the West.

But this only in the context of the Arab uprisings, let us not forget. Would not otherwise have been tried. First, obviously because there wouldn't have been an uprising against Gaddafi (much as one would have been called for). Second, it represented the opportunity to get a military claw into the events, to reintroduce military might as the determinant. Focus is on NATO in Libya, distracting also from events in Saudi, Bahrain, Yemen. Finally, it's clear that the Europeans took the lead (as so often urged to do!) and again, the US is never going to just sit and let them do that without participating.

The U.S. does not object in the slightest when a leader oppresses or even attacks his own people. The U.S. adores leaders who do things like that. Its best friends in the region have long done and continue to do exactly that -- from Mubarak to the Saudis to Yemen's Saleh to the Bahrainis, not to mention the Shah of Iran and even our one-time good friend Saddam. The very idea that the U.S. Government woke up one day and suddenly decided that it can no longer abide a leader who mistreats his own people -- and that's why we went to Libya -- is so ludicrous that it's actually painful to hear that people believe that. It so obviously confuses pretext with cause. If Gaddafi had continued to be as compliant as he had been in the past, does anyone really believe we would have invaded his country and spent months trying to kill him and replace him with another regime?

That's not to say that Gaddafi's "resource nationalism" is the only or even overriding motive for the war in Libya. Wars are typically caused by the interests of multiple factions and rarely have just one motive. As Jim Webb explained in arguing that the U.S. has no vital interest in Libya, the French and British are far more reliant on Libyan oil than the U.S. is (and this reader offers a rational dissent and alternative explanation for the war). But the U.S. has long made clear that it will not tolerate hostile or disobedient rulers in countries where it believes it has vital interests, and that's particularly true in oil rich nations (which is one reason for the American obsession with Iran). It's just hard to believe that any rational person would believe that the war in Libya is unrelated to the fact that Gaddafi has been increasingly obstructionist in allowing Western oil companies access to that nation's oil and that Libya is so rich in oil.

Here's what "this reader" had to say, and I think s/he's right about the proximate factor prompting the intervention:

http://ggdrafts.blogspot.com/2011/06/re ... libya.html

sábado, 11 de junho de 2011

Reader dissent on Libya

A quibble about your article on Libya

1) US puppets sometimes drive a hard bargain behind the scenes (i.e tweak
the boss's nose a bit). Francois Duvalier did a lot of this - and the US did
toy with the idea of deposing him for this reason- but they didn't. I
don't see the kind of "pain in the ass" behaviour Gaddafi demonstrated being
the major driving force behind the war though I don't deny it was a factor.

2) The Arab Spring was showing up the complete irrelevance of western
military might for any liberatory purpose. Militarization is crucial to the West
for numerous reasons and they will jump at any chance to pass off their
military might as a force for good. Of course they will not do this by
driving Israel out of Palestine - or Saudi Arabia out of Bahrain. The West will
choose targets that make sense from its imperial point of view. Gaddafi was
a disposable and annoying employee. However, I think it is wrong - based on
what you present - to suggest his rule posed any serious or even
significant threat to Western interests.

Instead, I would argue Gaddafi's (seemingly) imminent collapse provided an
irresistible opportunity for the West to restore credibility to the idea of
"humanitarian intervention" which has taken a severe beating in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Of course, the fact that Gaddafi was a pain in the ass, and easy
to demonize (without need for much lying) contributed to making this an
irresistible opportunity.

You can't steal/control foreign resources - or maintain incredibly bloated
military budgets at home - if you can't use your military. The West has a
huge incentive to jump at what it regards as a good.opportunity to use its
military.

JE

[Hammer of Los]

Bloody Libya. They're making me more and more annoyed. It think I only post when I am really annoyed, maybe like my dear, dear old friend, StarmanSky! Always lovely to see you post, don't ever leave me, man.

On to the commentary, all self evident really;

I don't even think there is a popular uprising per se in Libya. I think the west has aided and abetted the fuelling of a violent and bloody civil war, by arming and supporting Monarchist and Islamic factions, who have always been plotting against Gadaffi. Remember Shayler, of course we all do, my goodness me, poor old David Shayler, they did a number on him, pumping him full of drugs and disinfo; maybe the cross dressing was his own idea. Anyway, he revealed, on the BBC, back when it had some independence from the spooks, that MI6 had paid Al Qaeda to assasinate Gadaffi. So, these factions, together with the Monarchists who were deposed when the Libyan army, quite sensibly, abolished the monarchy, have always been there working to violently depose Gadaffi. I guess the West pushing the war big time has got a lot to do with simple opportunism, in the wake of events in Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere.

From Wiki;

Gaddafi’s coup d’état

The discovery of significant oil reserves in 1959 and the subsequent income from petroleum sales enabled the United Kingdom of Libya to transition from one of the world's poorest nations to a wealthy state. Although oil drastically improved the Libyan government's finances, resentment began to build over the increased concentration of the nation's wealth in the hands of King Idris. This discontent mounted with the rise of Nasserism and Arab nationalism throughout North Africa and the Middle East.

On September 1, 1969, the so-called Free Officers Movement, a group of about 70 young army officers and enlisted men mostly assigned to the Signal Corps, seized control of the government and in a stroke abolished the Libyan monarchy. The coup was launched at Benghazi, and within two hours the takeover was completed. Army units quickly rallied in support of the coup, and within a few days firmly established military control in Tripoli and elsewhere throughout the country. Popular reception of the coup, especially by younger people in the urban areas, was enthusiastic. Fears of resistance in Cyrenaica and Fezzan proved unfounded. No deaths or violent incidents related to the coup were reported.[citation needed]

The Free Officers Movement, which claimed credit for carrying out the coup, was headed by a twelve-member directorate that designated itself the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC). This body constituted the Libyan government after the coup. In its initial proclamation on September 1,[1] the RCC declared the country to be a free and sovereign state called the Libyan Arab Republic, which would proceed "in the path of freedom, unity, and social justice, guaranteeing the right of equality to its citizens, and opening before them the doors of honorable work." The rule of the Turks and Italians and the "reactionary" regime just overthrown were characterized as belonging to "dark ages," from which the Libyan people were called to move forward as "free brothers" to a new age of prosperity, equality, and honor.

.

Fears of resistance in Cyrenaica and Fezzan proved unfounded. No deaths or violent incidents related to the coup were reported.

A painless and bloodless revolution. My goodness me. The army just decided to abolish the monarchy, the people agreed, and it was done. Now that is a model of enlightened human behaviour.

So you know, we have a secular socialist pan arab nationalist on the one hand, who espouses government by small local representative committees, and a bunch of Monarchists and Islamists who insist on government by the divine authority of King and Church.

I know which side I would prefer to support. I'm not a big supporter of Monarchists and Theocrats.

[Bruce Dazzling]

Kucinich and nine other Congressmen filed a lawsuit in Federal Court that challenges the constitutionality of the war in Libya.

It also challenges policies that permit the US to be committed to war under the authority of NATO and the UN.

[8bitagent]

Meanwhile, US intensifying drone/air/cruise missile campaign in Yemen

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43333763/ns ... ork_times/

(noone seems to be noticing that in the media or blogosphere, with all the weinerstuff and lulzy 2012 GOP selection)

[Bruce Dazzling]

Meanwhile, US intensifying drone/air/cruise missile campaign in Yemen

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43333763/ns ... ork_times/

(noone seems to be noticing that in the media or blogosphere, with all the weinerstuff and lulzy 2012 GOP selection)

What's to notice? It's just business as usual.

Oceania, East Asia, etc...

[Bruce Dazzling]

Congressman Kucinich Backs Africa Libya Plan; Says ICC Investigate NATO On Possible War Crimes
By Milton Allimadi
06-16-11

Congressman Dennis Kucinich says in an interview with The Black Star News that he's determined to support the African Union's peace proposal to end the Libya war and even willing to travel to the war-torn country to meet both Muammar al-Quathafi and the rebels seeking his ouster.

At the same time, the Congressman denounced NATO's bombing campaigns and said he's contacted the International Criminal Court about investigating its commanders on possible war crimes charges.

"You can't just talk the talk," when it comes to seeking peace, Rep. Kucinich (D-Ohio) said, in an exclusive wide-ranging interview with this newspaper. "You have to be willing to walk the walk."

Kucinich urged President Barack Obama to "seize the opportunity" for a peaceful resolution to the Libya war and stalemate even as challenges mount from Congress to the U.S. role.

The longer the U.S. continues supporting attacks on Libya through NATO, the more weaponry flows into north Africa, destabilizing the entire region. He says Africa must be allowed to take the lead in ending the conflict. Western involvement in Africa is always clouded by economic motives, he said.

Rep. Kucinich said he had built on the African Union (AU) plan, being promoted by South Africa's President Jacob Zuma, in drafting his own proposal. He said his own peace plan calls for reparations for Libyans killed and injured "on both sides."

He said Libyans needed reconciliation and to come up with a government that reflected the aspirations of the people. He said he has been in touch with people in contact with both sides in the conflict. Kucinich said the bombing campaign was preventing Libyans from reconciling.

Rep. Kucinich said he's written a letter to ICC to ask that NATO's commanders be investigated for possible war crimes in Libya. "If civilians were killed NATO needs to be held accountable," Rep. Kucinich said, in the telephone interview today. "If you kill people, there has to be consequences." He said such an investigation would not involve all NATO member countries but only the commanders now in charge of the attacks on Libya.

Kucinich, together with nine other lawmakers, yesterday filed a lawsuit against President Obama seeking to have a U.S. District Court Judge declare the U.S. involvement in the Libya war unconstitutional. He says President Obama is in violation of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution which holds that only Congress can declare war and involve "our young men and women in harms way."

Kucinich also dismissed President Obama's defense that his Administration is not in violation of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 because the U.S. supportive role in the current war in Libya doesn't fit within the definition of "hostilities" as envisioned in the resolution.

"Dropping bombs on Tripoli -- if any country had 2,000 flights over the united states, which is how many sorties the US flew above Libya," Kuchinic said, referring to the initial attacks involving U.S, pilots before the handover to NATO, "bombing us, we would say that's an act of war."

He added, referring to Rep. John Boehner, "As the Speaker said, it doesn’t pass the straight face test. This attempt at verbal gymnastic over such serious issues is very disappointing coming from an Administration which is run by constitutional scholars."

Asked about the prospects of the lawsuit he filed together with nine other members of Congress --seven Republicans-- given that the Courts typically sided with the White House on such matters, kucinich sounded confident. "If we can get standing and the court gives us the ability to go forward with this, I think we have an excellent chance to win on the merits," he said, adding trhat the constitution made it absolutely clear that only the U.S. Congress had the authority to declare war.

"It has nothing to do with the personalities; it has everything to do with the Constitution," he noted, adding that if the court agreed that "we raised the question of separation of powers and the court will rule in our favor and reinstate the constitution."

Kucinich denounced NATO's and the U.S.'s position that the attacks in Libya was about protecting civilians. "Of course it became about regime change and we know there have been several efforts on Quathafi's life."

He added: "We need to ask ourselves what kind of nation are we? Are we a nation who believes in the rule of law? We think we can just assassinate the head of another government because it's our privilege?"

Kucinich said NATO had exceeded it's authority, not only in Libya but in Afghanistan as well. The organization had become a "global cop" and it was time to ask whether the organization has outlived its usefulness.

[Bruce Dazzling]

Excerpt from a Kucinich letter to Ban Ki-moon, dated 6/14/11:

"It is imperative that NATO and its commanders are held directly accountable under international criminal statutes for actions which place the lives of innocent civilians at risk. The United Nations has an obligation under international law to ensure that military operations it has authorized are conducted in accordance with such laws. NATO has repeatedly and wantonly neglected to follow the law. The United Nations, if it is to continue to be a credible interlocutor among nations, has no choice but to conduct an independent investigation of actions taken by NATO and to pursue prosecution where warranted."

More at the link.

[StarmanSkye]

Goddammmit. The US's supporting/facilitating/encouraging-role in NATO's newfound Global Empire parapolicing military-ops was instituted by-plan beginning its newly-constitued franchise in the Yugoslavia takedown/dismemberment. Remeber that 'little' fiasco? Tho the minority rich financial elites and political pluto-oligarchs who benefitted from that psyops/blackops sure will see it different, Milosevic was recast as Hitler reborn in order to justify what was basically a western economic/military assault on Russian interests and influence in Eurasia, organized around the criminal syndicate/conclave of Kosovo, using the extensive CIA/terrorist asset resources cultivated over a dozen+ years. USEU Inc. vs RusFR vs Oceana vs ChiHK vs MittelEuropa with bunches of Little people and Freemen and Serfs and unemployed Day Laborers and Squatters, RiffRaff, Useless Eaters, Angry Hordes etc. cluttering up the Free Fire Zones and Post Industrial shanty towns and unincorporated commons ... (or contested Territories).

The Future seems to be shaping-up much like Phillip K Dick and Orwell foretold, corporate entities spreading tentacles via parastate/mercenary corporate forces (and lawyers!) (that is, AFTER the Economic Hitmen do their beachhead damage).

US Inc. and EU Inc. operating thru the 'agencies' of NATO and UN (when/as necessary or convenient). (OR expedient). (Prize territories and assets to be apportioned among Interested Parties in mediation/negotiations after Cease Fire has been declared by Duly Designated Referees).

[8bitagent]

Well any support NATO had in Tripoli is long gone...seems like most the people in Tripoli are anti NATO and wants the EU and US to stop bombing them
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp ... 0#43446644

You may have a situation where NATO gunships and bombs backup rebels marching into Tripoli...only to find its not just Ghadafi they find resistance from, but the people themselves.

Meanwhile, in Syria...

[JackRiddler]

.

More Greenwald excellence on the truly imperial presidency, with a useful historical review of the intra-Bush regime fight when Comey and Ashcroft got cold feet about the original NSA program.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... index.html

Saturday, Jun 18, 2011 06:19 ET

Obama rejects top lawyers' legal views on Libya
By Glenn Greenwald
AP

(updated below)

The growing controversy over President Obama's illegal waging of war in Libya got much bigger last night with Charlie Savage's New York Times scoop. He reveals that top administration lawyers -- Attorney General Eric Holder, OLC Chief Caroline Krass, and DoD General Counsel Jeh Johnson -- all told Obama that his latest, widely panned excuse for waging war without Congressional approval (that it does not rise to the level of "hostilities" under the War Powers Resolution (WPR)) was invalid and that such authorization was legally required after 60 days: itself a generous intepretation of the President's war powers. But Obama rejected those views and (with the support of administration lawyers in lesser positions: his White House counsel and long-time political operative Robert Bauer and State Department "legal adviser" Harold Koh) publicly claimed that the WPR does not apply to Libya.

As Savage notes, it is, in particular, "extraordinarily rare" for a President "to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice." Just imagine if George Bush had waged a war that his own Attorney General, OLC Chief, and DoD General Counsel all insisted was illegal (and did so by pointing to the fact that his White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and a legal adviser at State agreed with him). One need not imagine this, though, because there is very telling actual parallel to this lawless episode:

In 2007, former Bush Deputy Attorney General James Comey testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee about an amazing event. Bush's then-Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, had blocked Comey from testifying for two years -- once Democrats took over Congress, that obstruction was no longer possible -- and it quickly became apparent why Gonzales was so desperate to suppress these events.

Comey explained that, in 2004, shortly after he became Deputy AG, he reviewed the NSA eavesdropping program Bush had ordered back in 2001 and concluded it was illegal. Other top administration lawyers -- including Attorney General John Ashcroft and OLC Chief Jack Goldsmith -- agreed with Comey, and told the White House they would no longer certify the program's legality. It was then that Bush dispatched Gonzales and Andy Card to Ashcroft's hospital room to try to extract an approval from the very sick Attorney General, but, from his sickbed, Ashcroft refused to overrule Comey.

Bush decided to reject the legal conclusions of his top lawyers and ordered the NSA eavesdropping program to continue anyway, even though he had been told it was illegal (like Obama now, Bush pointed to the fact that his own White House counsel (Gonzales), along with Dick Cheney's top lawyer, David Addington, agreed the NSA program was legal). In response, Ashcroft, Comey, Goldsmith, and FBI Director Robert Mueller all threatened to resign en masse if Bush continued with this illegal spying, and Bush -- wanting to avoid that kind of scandal in an election year -- agreed to "re-fashion" the program into something those DOJ lawyers could approve (the "re-fashioned" program was the still-illegal NSA program revealed in 2005 by The New York Times; to date, we still do not know what Bush was doing before that that was so illegal as to prompt resignation threats from these right-wing lawyers).

That George Bush would knowingly order an eavesdropping program to continue which his own top lawyers were telling him was illegal was, of course, a major controversy, at least in many progressive circles. Now we have Barack Obama not merely eavesdropping in a way that his own top lawyers are telling him is illegal, but waging war in that manner (though, notably, there is no indication that these Obama lawyers have the situational integrity those Bush lawyers had [and which Archibald Cox, Eliot Richardson and William Ruckelshaus had before them] by threatening to resign if the lawlessness continues).

There's another significant and telling parallel between Obama's illegal war and the Bush eavesdropping scandal. One of the questions frequently asked about the NSA scandal was why Bush and Cheney decided to eavesdrop in violation of the law rather than having Congress approve their program; in the wake of 9/11, both parties in Congress were as subservient as could be, and would have offered zero resistance to requests by the administration for increased eavesdropping powers (the same question was asked of Bush's refusal to seek Congressional approval for the detention and military commissions regime at Guantanamo). The answer to that question ultimately became clear: they did not want to seek Congressional approval, even though they easily could have obtained it, because they wanted to establish the "principle" that the President is omnipotent in these areas and needs nobody's permission (neither from Congress nor the courts) to do what the President wants.

The exact same question emerges here. From the start, the GOP leadership was vocally supportive of the war in Libya. In fact, John McCain was demanding the war begin before Obama even committed to it, while Lindsey Graham was urging the war be waged more aggressively. On the eve of the war, GOP House Speaker John Boehner -- while calling on Obama to be clear about the mission -- issued a statement declaring: "The United States has a moral obligation to stand with those who seek freedom from oppression and self-government for their people. It's unacceptable and outrageous for Qadhafi to attack his own people, and the violence must stop."

Indeed, Obama's most valuable allies on Libya from the start (as is true for his war in Afghanistan and other Terrorism policies) have been Republican leaders. As The Washington Post reported in early June, Boehner -- acting as an "unlikely ally" of Obama -- introduced a meaningless resolution as a means of preventing passage of a more meaningful anti-Libya resolution: namely, Rep. Kucinich's bill to compel withdrawal within 15 days. Moreover, most of the GOP House leadership just this week voted (along with Democratic leaders) against Brad Sherman's amendment to cut off funds for Libya if Obama refuses to comply with the WPR. Right-wing support for Obama's Libya policy continues to be strong, as yesterday Bill Kristol and other assorted neocons issued a letter urging steadfast support for the war.

It should go without saying that even if the GOP had refused to support the war, that would not remotely be an excuse for violating the law and waging it without Congressional approval. Obviously, the law (and the Constitution) does not require Congressional approval for wars only where Congress favors the wars, but in all instances (it should also go without saying that a belief in the morality of this war is not an excuse for waging it illegally, any more than Bush followers' claims that warrantless eavesdropping and torture were beneficial excused their illegality). All that aside, what is undeniable is that Obama could have easily obtained Congressional approval for this war -- just as Bush could have for his warrantless eavesdropping program -- but consciously chose not to, even to the point of acting contrary to his own lawyers' conclusions about what is illegal.

Other than the same hubris -- and a desire to establish his power to act without constraints -- it's very hard to see what motivated this behavior. Whatever the motives are, it's clear that he's waging an illegal war, as his own Attorney General, OLC Chief and DoD General Counsel have told him.

* * * * *

For more on the absurdity and lawlessness of Obama's excuse-making in refusing to obtain Congressional approval, see The Atlantic's James Fallows and The New Yorker's Amy Davidson.



UPDATE: Also in The New York Times this morning, Scott Shane describes the still-escalating war on whistleblowers being waged by the Obama administration, including the press-freedom-threatening prosecution of WikiLeaks. As sysprog astutely observes in comments: "if the Administration and Congress are successful in squelching the publication of secrets, that may prevent future scoops like today's by Charlie Savage."

That, of course, is precisely the point of this war: to suffocate one of the only remaining avenues for learning what the government actually does, as opposed to what they want the public to believe they do. As Thomas Jefferson long ago observed: avenues of disclosure are "the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions."

[JackRiddler]

.

I think ultimately even with all the geostrategic, economic and resource considerations, reviewed here, the NATO intervention in Libya was situational, with the motive of getting hooks into the Arab uprisings and the aspiration of being able to dictate outcomes the traditional way, by force of Western arms. Without intervention, Libya would have far likelier remained one nation with an independent role in the Arab world. Now it may be balkanized...

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/201 ... -the-west/

Why Is Libya in the Crosshairs of the West?
by Dr. Jyoti Prasad Das
June 13, 2011



The thaw in US-Libyan relations came in 2003, when Qaddafi abandoned his WMD program, renounced terrorism, opened up the oil sector to Big Oil, and compensated the victims of the 1986 Berlin disco attack and the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. George Bush rewarded him by waiving the sanctions on Libya in 2004. Qaddafi was happily shipping off Libyan oil to European ports. He was buying their weapons. He had invested in the US’s private equity firms and big banks. He shared crucial intelligence with the West on Al Qaeda. Then why did he come in the line of fire? Was it for his ruthless crackdown on violent protesters? There’s definitely more than what meets the eye.

Tripoli was a reluctant ally, not a firm ally, in America’s war on terror. A 2007 West Point study based on Al Qaeda files retrieved from Sinjar in Iraq confirmed that Libyan fighters crossing the Syrian border into Iraq under the banner of ‘Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia’ consisted of a far larger percentage on a per capita basis than any other nationality in the 2006-07 timeframe. Turning his back on jihadis fleeing Libya was Qaddafi’s way to purge his country of potential troublemakers. ‘Operation Odyssey Dawn’ was launched to impede Tripoli from exploiting the power vacuum during the transition in Cairo and Tunis. The assault came even before the UN special envoy to Libya had tabled his report. Regime change in Tripoli costs the US relatively little. Qaddafi did not have an ‘oil for protection’ arrangement with the US like the Saudis. Nor was he pivotal to the US like the Bahrainis who host the US’ Fifth Fleet and have an FTA with the Americans. Bahrain is strategic because it is separated from Saudi Arabia by a narrow seaway through which 18% of the world’s oil passes.

Qaddafi was wedded to the idea of floating a ‘gold dinar’ in conducting international oil trade. He urged the OPEC members to re-price their oil in the gold dinar, instead of dollars. His view resonated well with the African petro-economies. Such a bold move could have had ‘ground-shifting’ implications for the world economic order. A country’s economic strength would depend on the gold reserves and not on its dollar assets. In 2000, Saddam Hussein announced that Iraqi oil would be traded in euros, not dollars. Some say that the sanctions and the invasion followed because the US was desperate to deter other OPEC members from toeing a similar line.

The ocean of fossil water reserves that lie under Libya’s deserts have the potential for more lucrative profits than the fossil fuel reserves. There are 3 major aquifers that lie beneath the Sahara. The largest among is the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System (NSAS), which spans through 4 African nations—Chad, Egypt, Sudan, and Libya—and is called the world’s largest fossil water system, which could transform lives, lands, and economies. Libya’s ‘Great Man-made River’ project, a large underground network of pipes and aqueducts, was conceived in the late ’60′s. Funded by Qaddafi without foreign loans, construction began in 1984, costing $20 billion so far and supplying water to the populated coastal settlements. With the completion of the project, water shortage throughout Libya would have been a distant thought. In a post-Qaddafi era, the project may fall in corporate hands whose interest may lie in ‘commercializing’ water.

Qaddafi was a champion of African unity. His rallying cry—African resources for African development—had a mass appeal. He demanded greater representation for the AU States in international forums. His well-known contribution to the struggle for African emancipation were anathema to the West. A few years back, Qaddafi had fallen out with the Arab League on ideological principles, worldview and geopolitical interests. He had backed most of the liberation forces on the continent like the ANC of South Africa, SWAPO of Nambia, MPLA of Angola, SPLM of Sudan, Polisario Front of Morocco and RUF of Sierra Leone. He invested huge sums in the infrastructure development of sub-Saharan Africa. A US lackey in Tripoli would instead funnel the aid money to the tanking Western economies.

Money is the lifeblood of all economies. One who controls it, controls everything. Qaddafi did not open up the banking sector to Western multi-national banks. The Libyan economy was not integrated to the world economy, leaving no scope for banking sharks to manipulate the economy. It remained unscathed by the pitfalls of liberalization. Besides the Central bank of Libya (CBL), only a handful of Gulf-based Islamic banks were allowed to operate. The CBL issues Libyan dinars, interest-free, for the productive development of the nation and its citizenry. Since the CBL is not a member of the Bank for International Settlements’(BIS)—an inter-governmental organization that serves as a bank for all Central banks—the BIS could not ‘regulate’ the Libyan economy and advise Tripoli on economic matters and monetary reforms. In this backdrop, the Libyan rebels had to set up their Central Bank in Benghazi to begin transactions with the outside world. Further, the Libyan Investment Authority—a Sovereign Wealth Fund—manages an estimated $70 billion in fixed assets, reserves, and foreign investments. $30 billion invested in the West was frozen by Obama, but a part of it has been released to aid the rebels.

Oil was discovered in Libya in 1956. The prized sweet crude, low in sulfur, is much sought after. Moreover, Libya’s oil and gas reserves are produced onshore, unlike the other African states. This reduces development costs. Though it contributes 2% of the world’s oil output, its untapped potential is said to be much higher. There are huge stakes over who develops, produces, and receives in what amounts. China has expanded its energy footprints in Libya and that has come at an unacceptable cost to the Western oil giants. The African Oil Policy Initiative Group (AOPIG) was behind the US AFRICOM (USAC) project because a US National Intelligence Council report had stated that 25% of America’s oil will come from Africa by 2015. A US Naval Post-Graduate school report of 2007 identified 3 priority areas for the US in Africa: international terrorism, oil and gas, and the lurking Chinese challenge. The main aim of the USAC is to set up military bases to advance the American agenda and safeguard its interests. Qaddafi had opted out of USAC, one of the 9 global Pentagon commands, to control Africa and the Mediterranean Basin, including the strategic energy transit routes and choke points, crucial for the world economy. Of all the African states, only Sudan, Zimbabwe, Eritrea, Ivory Coast and Libya are not a part of the USAC. Now pause a while to pore on the socio-political conditions prevailing in these 5 countries.

Libya had become a battleground of Sino-US rivalry. China has expressed its interests in trading oil through a basket of currencies that could likely include the gold dinar. Last year, China had $6.6 billion worth of trade with Libya, most of it in oil. Qaddafi has favored Chinese companies to win stakes in some of Libya’s most prospective oil blocks. China has extensive energy and construction investments in Libya. 30,000 Chinese were employed in these projects before the evacuation. The US wants to deny the Chinese the oil produced from their own investments. Then why did Beijing abstain rather than voting against U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 to safeguard its interests? Simply because it is still not in a position to face off with the US/NATO. It would be ludicrous for China to throw its weight behind a doomed strongman. But Beijing has provided weapons and intelligence to Tripoli, and it hopes to work with whoever holds power in future.

Libya’s geographical location and terrain has the potential to play a key role in US-led operations in the region, as evident from the historic role of the Wheelus airbase during the Cold War. Libya’s vast desert expanses and good weather are ideal for setting up gunnery and target ranges. It has the largest southern Mediterranean coastline. The major highway runs in close proximity to the coast offering easy access to the sea. The Green Mountain overlooks Europe’s busy shipping lanes. The Mediterranean is home to the US’ Sixth Fleet, numerous US/NATO bases and important oil terminals. It is central to the US’ ‘Phased Adaptive Approach’ plan which involves deploying a land and sea based BMD (ballistic missile defense) shield of radars and interceptor missiles. The BMD system includes the SM-3 anti-ballistic missiles on board the USS Monterey and the Aegis class warships. Air and Naval bases can contribute in projecting power far beyond the Mediterranean shores, apart from the back-up to the sea-based assets. Ports in the Gulf of Sidra can provide fuelling and servicing facilities.

The French and the British have their sights on lucrative oil contracts and big-ticket defense deals. The French government was outraged when Qaddafi din not opt for Dassault’s Rafale fighter jets and Areva’s nuclear reactors. BP’s oil deal with Libya, approved by Qaddafi after the disputed release of Al Meghrahi, was mired in bureaucratic delays. Whitehall saw the unrest as an opportunity to pounce on Qaddafi for dilly-dallying on the project. Sarkozy’s hawkish advocacy for intervention in Libya was with the motive to renew his popularity for a re-election gambit, after he came under fire for France’s discredited diplomacy in Tunisia, Paris was furious over Tripoli for cutting mega arms deals with Ukraine and Russia. Then what held back Russia from vetoing the resolution on Libya? Moscow could not afford to derail the ‘reset’ with the US. The Libyan turmoil jacked up oil prices and that brought a windfall for Russian oil. It leaves the door open for Russia to ‘intervene’ in the conflict zones in its sphere of influence under the rubric of ‘humanitarian intervention’.

Dr. Jyoti Prasad Das is a medical practitioner from Assam, India, where he contributes articles on geopolitics to a local daily. He can be contacted at jyoprd6@rediffmail.com. Read more articles by Dr. Jyoti Prasad Das.

[Hammer of Los]

Libya was always a centre for independent pan-arabic nationalism (if that's the right phrase).

Also a centre for anti imperialist, both capitalist and communist, sentiment.

Therefore, always a target. With no friends. Not a good situation to find yourself in.

Of course, I am no expert in Middle East Affairs.

So I may have that wrong. But somehow I don't think so.