Messages In This Digest (17 Messages) Messages - 1.
-
Wed Aug 31, 2011 3:15 pm (PDT) http://rickrozoff. wordpress. com/2011/ 08/31/libya- nato-acquires- military- outpost-in- third-continent/ Voice of Russia August 31, 2011 Libya: Another country for NATO to take root in John Robles Interview conducted on August 27 with Rick Rozoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list and a contributing writer to Global Research.ca. Can you shed a little light on the situation in Libya, in particular with NATO? As you know, I'm in Chicago, not in Tripoli, so I'm observing events from afar. Yet there is an old Roman expression which says the game is best viewed by the spectator. So, what I have to say I think is trying to situate developments in Libya, whatever they are on the ground, within both a regional and an international context. And, within that framework, we know that the African Union has refused recognition to the so-called Transitional National Council, consisting of what by all accounts is a fairly motley, heterogeneous grouping of anti-government forces in Libya, aided and abetted by major NATO powers like France, Britain, the U.S. and Italy and by Persian Gulf monarchies like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. So, the fact that the African continent, on which Libya is located, has collectively refused recognition to the new rebel regime is significant, as is the fact that the Russian Foreign Ministry has voiced its concerns and its opposition to any plans that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization may entertain for placing troops on the ground in Libya, ostensibly under the guise of a peacekeeping or stabilization force, but also more prominently voiced some concerns about the prospect of NATO military facilities being authorized by the forces opposed to Gaddafi. Would you characterize everything that you have heard and seen as a true revolution of the people or is it some sort of a western-backed insurgency in your opinion? The latter is acknowledged by universal accord, even by those celebrating the apparent overthrow of the government in Libya as a triumph of "people's power" democracy or however they choose to phrase it. What is unquestionable is the fact that, whatever the nature of the rebel coalition is, it would never have succeeded in consolidating support outside of Libya, much less moving into the capital, if it had not been for over 21,000 NATO air missions since March 31 and almost 8,000 combat air sorties in the same period of time. Additionally, more and more information is emanating from sources in Europe, newspapers in Britain and elsewhere, that special operations troops, special forces, from several major NATO countries, including the CIA which is acting in the streets of Tripoli, are actively involved in combat operations on the ground. Are they hunting Gaddafi or providing air support for the rebels? There is no question about both. The intent of United Nations Resolution 1973 adopted in March to "use all means necessary to protect Libyan civilians" had been extended and in essence violated by France, Britain, Italy, the U.S., Canada and other major NATO nations to wage what can only be characterized as a war against the incumbent government in Libya, and this includes, according to NATO's own statistics, over 21,000 air missions flown over Libya since March 31, of which almost 8,000 are combat sorties. And what is documented even in Western news sources, Western newspapers for example, is that as recently as today Muammar Gaddafi's hometown has been attacked by NATO warplanes and earlier, a couple of days ago, the major governmental compound in Tripoli was attacked by as many as 64 missiles. These attacks are coordinated with the military activities of rebel groupings, so that NATO basically bombs them into areas, including the capital and other cities in Libya. The coordination of NATO's aerial bombing and naval blockade of Libya with rebel forces is unquestionably an act of participation on behalf of one of the belligerent forces against the other – the government of Libya. And in that sense it's a perfect parallel to what happened in Yugoslavia in 1999, where NATO bombed the country mercilessly for 78 days in coordination and in conjunction with the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army. You mentioned that some people from Global Research.ca are in Libya, in Tripoli, and they are trapped in a hotel there. Actually, the international press corps is there. But there are particular concerns about Canadian-based journalist Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya of Global Research and French journalist Thierry Meyssan of the Voltaire Network, who have voiced concerns about their well-being. Their position is very well-known as not parroting the official line of the Western countries, and that information I'm sure has been passed on by establishment Western journalists within the hotel to rebel forces in Tripoli. And there is concern by the two journalists I've mentioned that their lives may be in danger. What do you see as NATO's role in Libya after Gaddafi is gone? Time will tell. But assuming previous Yugoslav and Afghan precedents as a likely scenario, we have a lot to go on. We have the fact that the Turkish Foreign Minister announced yesterday that NATO's role will continue in Libya after the installation of the rebel government, the so-called Transitional National Council. And similar soundings have emanated from major figures and NATO countries that suggest, far from NATO's role ending, it may in a certain sense just be beginning. And that parallels almost identically what happened in Yugoslavia in 1999 and what has happened in Afghanistan in the past decade, where NATO bombs itself into a country and sets up military bases and doesn't leave. The U.S. still maintains Camp Bondsteel in the contested Serbian province of Kosovo, which is a large, expansive base, by some accounts the largest overseas military facility built by the US since the war in Vietnam. And it remains there over 12 years after the end of the 78-day bombing campaign against Yugoslavia. Similarly, the U.S. has substantially upgraded air bases in Afghanistan, including those bordering Central Asian nations and close to the Iranian border, and there is no indication they are ever going to abandon them, as they are not going to abandon military bases in Iraq and other places. It's a lot easier to bring NATO into one's country or have it forced in than to get it out. ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= == Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messagesStop NATO website and articles: http://rickrozoff. wordpress. com To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status: stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==== - 2.
-
Wed Aug 31, 2011 3:34 pm (PDT) http://www.monsters andcritics. com/news/ africa/news/ article_1660173. php/NATO- could-continue- embargo-recon- flights-once- Libya-conflict- ends Deustche Presse-Agentur August 31, 2011 NATO could continue embargo, recon flights once Libya conflict ends Brussels: NATO could continue enforcing a naval arms embargo and carry out reconnaissance flights over Libya once its military mission there is over, diplomats said Wednesday. At a meeting in Brussels, NATO ambassadors agreed that the military alliance would be prepared to continue enforcing a naval arms embargo and provide jets for reconnaissance purposes, various sources indicated. ... NATO would also be willing to draw up plans for the evacuation of any possible United Nations mission to Libya, should it ever get into trouble, diplomats said. NATO has been conducting air raids, enforcing a naval embargo and policing a no-fly zone over Libya for five months... NATO spokeswoman Oana Lungescu said Tuesday: 'The mission will continue...for as long as it's needed - but not a day longer. It looks as if we are nearly there, but we're not there yet.' ... Options for NATO's future role were discussed a day before an international conference in Paris on the future of Libya. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen is among the expected attendees. ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= == Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messagesStop NATO website and articles: http://rickrozoff. wordpress. comTo subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status: stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==== - 3.
-
Wed Aug 31, 2011 3:34 pm (PDT) http://rt.com/ news/nato- chewing-resoluti on-libya- 525/ RT August 31, 2011 'NATO used UN resolution as chewing gum' -"The 21st century has already introduced itself as the era of wars for resources. The resources are running short, the consumption in Western countries is not going to go down any time soon. This means that there will be wars for new regions and new resources, and the actions of specific Western countries, as well as the entire coalition, such as NATO, will be gaining momentum in the future." NATO says it has no immediate plans to leave Libya as there is still a danger to civilians despite the rebels now controlling most of the country. However, Russia's envoy to NATO says the alliance's arguments are hard to take seriously. "We have to be very careful with regards to what official NATO representatives say today, because statements of tens of thousands of bombs and other ammunition being dropped on Libya having no adverse effect on civilians – that's what NATO has been claiming – that's very hard to believe," Dmitry Rogozin told RT. "That defines that we should be careful with regard to official statements from Brussels." Russia's ambassador to the alliance also noted that NATO deliberately and openly went beyond UN resolution 1973 that allowed for maintenance of a "no-fly zone" over Libya. "The 1973 resolution was used by NATO as chewing gum, so to say. I think that NATO might be deliberately demonstrating its disregard for the UN Security Council, to demonstrate that NATO is equal to the United Nations nowadays and will be getting even more significant and powerful in the future," he said. According to Rogozin, the conclusions that can be drawn from NATO's actions in Libya are much more significant than the situation in Libya itself. "NATO is turning into a global policeman now, using any resolutions taken by the UN Security Council to serve its own interests, without looking at the interests of other groups, even the interests of those they are claiming to be liberating in Libya," he said. "Knowing NATO, I doubt very seriously that NATO was actually concerned about the security of ordinary Libyans when they were interfering in this conflict," Russia's ambassador to the alliance added. Moreover, Dmitry Rogozin believes that the post-conflict state of affairs in Libya, with the possibility of different rebel groups disputing or even turning against each other sooner or later, will be a chance for certain Western countries to secure a permanent presence in Libya in order to control its vast oil resources. "The 21st century has already introduced itself as the era of wars for resources. The resources are running short, the consumption in Western countries is not going to go down any time soon," he said. "This means that there will be wars for new regions and new resources, and the actions of specific Western countries, as well as the entire coalition, such as NATO, will be gaining momentum in the future." ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= == Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messages Stop NATO website and articles: http://rickrozoff. wordpress. comTo subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status: stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==== - 4.
-
Wed Aug 31, 2011 3:34 pm (PDT) http://www.rttnews. com/Content/ GeneralNews. aspx?Id=1703944& SM=1 RTT News August 31, 2011 NATO Soldier Killed In Afghanistan A NATO soldier was killed in an improvised explosive device (IED) attack in eastern Afghanistan on Wednesday, the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said. An ISAF statement did not disclose the nationality of the deceased, as it deferred casualty identification procedures to the relevant national authorities. Mainly, U.S., British, Canadian, and Australian Marines are deployed to the dangerous southern provinces of the country. ... With this, the number of foreign troops killed in Afghanistan so far this year reached 418. August has become the deadliest month in the United States' decade-old military mission in Afghanistan. It has lost 66 troops in the war-ravaged country this month, the main loser...there. ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= == Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messagesStop NATO website and articles: http://rickrozoff. wordpress. comTo subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status: stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==== - 5.
-
Wed Aug 31, 2011 4:03 pm (PDT) http://www.pajhwok. com/en/2011/ 08/31/august- deadliest- month-yet- afghan-war Pajhwok Afghan News August 31, 2011 August deadliest month yet in Afghan war by Javed Hamim Kakar KABUL: August has become the deadliest month yet for international troops in the nearly 10-year-old war in Afghanistan, when 82 soldiers, including 66 Americans, were killed, eclipsing the previous record of 65 Americans killed in July 2010. Nearly half the August deaths occurred when insurgents shot down a Chinook helicopter August 6, killing 30 American troops, mostly elite Navy SEALs. ... Aside from the 30 Americans killed in the Chinook crash south-west of Kabul, 23 died this month in Kandahar and Helmand provinces in southern Afghanistan, the main focus of Afghan and US-led coalition forces. The remaining 13 were killed in eastern Afghanistan. ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= == Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messagesStop NATO website and articles: http://rickrozoff. wordpress. comTo subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status: stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==== - 6.
-
Wed Aug 31, 2011 6:58 pm (PDT) http://www.counterp unch.org/ 2011/08/31/ the-top-ten- myths-in- the-war-against- libya/ CounterPunch August 31, 2011 The Top Ten Myths in the War Against Libya By Maximilian C. Forte Since Colonel Gaddafi has lost his military hold in the war against NATO and the insurgents/rebels/ new regime, numerous talking heads have taken to celebrating this war as a "success". They believe this is a "victory of the Libyan people" and that we should all be celebrating. Others proclaim victory for the "responsibility to protect," for "humanitarian interventionism," and condemn the "anti-imperialist left". Some of those who claim to be "revolutionaries," or believe they support the "Arab revolution," somehow find it possible to sideline NATO's role in the war, instead extolling the democratic virtues of the insurgents, glorifying their martyrdom, and magnifying their role until everything else is pushed from view. I wish to dissent from this circle of acclamation, and remind readers of the role of ideologically- motivated fabrications of "truth" that were used to justify, enable, enhance, and motivate the war against Libya — and to emphasize how damaging the practical effects of those myths have been to Libyans, and to all those who favoured peaceful, non-militarist solutions. These top ten myths are some of the most repeated claims, by the insurgents, and/or by NATO, European leaders, the Obama administration, the mainstream media, and even the so-called "International Criminal Court" — the main actors speaking in the war against Libya. In turn, we look at some of the reasons why these claims are better seen as imperial folklore, as the myths that supported the broadest of all myths — that this war is a "humanitarian intervention," one designed to "protect civilians". Again, the importance of these myths lies in their wide reproduction, with little question, and to deadly effect. In addition, they threaten to severely distort the ideals of human rights and their future invocation, as well aiding in the continued militarization of Western culture and society. 1. Genocide. Just a few days after the street protests began, on February 21 the very quick to defect Libyan deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, Ibrahim Dabbashi, stated: "We are expecting a real genocide in Tripoli. The airplanes are still bringing mercenaries to the airports". This is excellent: a myth that is composed of myths. With that statement he linked three key myths together — the role of airports (hence the need for that gateway drug of military intervention: the no-fly zone), the role of "mercenaries" (meaning, simply, black people), and the threat of "genocide" (geared toward the language of the UN's doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect). As ham-fisted and wholly unsubstantiated as the assertion was, he was clever in cobbling together three ugly myths, one of them grounded in racist discourse and practice that endures to the present, with newer atrocities reported against black Libyan and African migrants on a daily basis. He was not alone in making these assertions. Among others like him, Soliman Bouchuiguir, president of the Libyan League for Human Rights, told Reuters on March 14 that if Gaddafi's forces reached Benghazi, "there will be a real bloodbath, a massacre like we saw in Rwanda". That's not the only time we would be deliberately reminded of Rwanda. Here was Lt. Gen Roméo Dallaire, the much worshipped Canadian force commander of the U.N. peacekeeping mission for Rwanda in 1994, currently an appointed senator in the Canadian Parliament and co-director of the Will to Intervene project at Concordia University. Dallaire, in a precipitous sprint to judgment, not only made repeated references to Rwanda when trying to explain Libya, he spoke of Gaddafi as "employing genocidal threats to 'cleanse Libya house by house'". This is one instance where selective attention to Gaddafi's rhetorical excess was taken all too seriously, when on other occasions the powers that be are instead quick to dismiss it: U.S. State Department spokesman, Mark Toner, waved away Gaddafi's alleged threats against Europe by saying that Gaddafi is "someone who's given to overblown rhetoric". How very calm, by contrast, and how very convenient — because on February 23, President Obama declared that he had instructed his administration to come up with a "full range of options" to take against Gaddafi. But "genocide" has a well established international legal definition, as seen repeatedly in the UN's 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, where genocide involves the persecution of a "a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". Not all violence is "genocidal". Internecine violence is not genocide. Genocide is neither just "lots of violence" nor violence against undifferentiated civilians. What both Dabbashi, Dallaire, and others failed to do was to identify the persecuted national, ethnic, racial or religious group, and how it differed in those terms from those allegedly committing the genocide. They really ought to know better (and they do), one as a UN ambassador and the other as a much exalted expert and lecturer on genocide. This suggests that myth-making was either deliberate, or founded on prejudice. What foreign military intervention did do, however, was to enable the actual genocidal violence that has been routinely sidelined until only very recently: the horrific violence against African migrants and black Libyans, singled out solely on the basis of their skin colour. That has proceeded without impediment, without apology, and until recently, without much notice. Indeed, the media even collaborates, rapid to assert without evidence that any captured or dead black man must be a "mercenary". This is the genocide that the white, Western world, and those who dominate the "conversation" about Libya, have missed (and not by accident). 2. Gaddafi is "bombing his own people". We must remember that one of the initial reasons in rushing to impose a no-fly zone was to prevent Gaddafi from using his air force to bomb "his own people" — a distinct phrasing that echoes what was tried and tested in the demonization of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. On February 21, when the first alarmist "warnings" about "genocide" were being made by the Libyan opposition, both Al Jazeera and the BBC claimed that Gaddafi had deployed his air force against protesters — as the BBC "reported": "Witnesses say warplanes have fired on protesters in the city". Yet, on March 1, in a Pentagon press conference, when asked: "Do you see any evidence that he [Gaddafi] actually has fired on his own people from the air? There were reports of it, but do you have independent confirmation? If so, to what extent?" U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates replied, "We've seen the press reports, but we have no confirmation of that". Backing him up was Admiral Mullen: "That's correct. We've seen no confirmation whatsoever". In fact, claims that Gaddafi also used helicopters against unarmed protesters are totally unfounded, a pure fabrication based on fake claims. This is important since it was Gaddafi's domination of Libyan air space that foreign interventionists wanted to nullify, and therefore myths of atrocities perpetrated from the air took on added value as providing an entry point for foreign military intervention that went far beyond any mandate to "protect civilians". David Kirpatrick of The New York Times as early as March 21 confirmed that, "the rebels feel no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda, claiming nonexistent battlefield victories, asserting they were still fighting in a key city days after it fell to Qaddafi forces, and making vastly inflated claims of his barbaric behavior". The "vastly inflated claims" are what became part of the imperial folklore surrounding events in Libya, that suited Western intervention. Rarely did the Benghazi-based journalistic crowd question or contradict their hosts. 3. Save Benghazi. This article is being written as the Libyan opposition forces march on Sirte and Sabha, the two last remaining strongholds of the Gaddafi government, with ominous warnings to the population that they must surrender, or else. Apparently, Benghazi became somewhat of a "holy city" in the international discourse dominated by leaders of the European Union and NATO. Benghazi was the one city on earth that could not be touched. It was like sacred ground. Tripoli? Sirte? Sabha? Those can be sacrificed, as we all look on, without a hint of protest from any of the powers that be — this, even as we get the first reports of how the opposition has slaughtered people in Tripoli. Let's turn to the Benghazi myth. "If we waited one more day," Barack Obama said in his March 28 address, "Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world". In a joint letter, Obama with UK Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy asserted: "By responding immediately, our countries halted the advance of Gaddafi's forces. The bloodbath that he had promised to inflict on the citizens of the besieged city of Benghazi has been prevented. Tens of thousands of lives have been protected". Not only did French jets bomb a retreating column, what we saw was a very short column that included trucks and ambulances, and that clearly could have neither destroyed nor occupied Benghazi. Other than Gaddafi's "overblown rhetoric," which the U.S. was quick to dismiss when it suited its purposes, there is to date still no evidence furnished that shows Benghazi would have witnessed the loss of "tens of thousands" of lives as proclaimed by Obama, Cameron, and Sarkozy. This was best explained by Professor Alan J. Kuperman in "False pretense for war in Libya?": "The best evidence that Khadafy did not plan genocide in Benghazi is that he did not perpetrate it in the other cities he had recaptured either fully or partially — including Zawiya, Misurata, and Ajdabiya, which together have a population greater than Benghazi…Khadafy's acts were a far cry from Rwanda, Darfur, Congo, Bosnia, and other killing fields…Despite ubiquitous cellphones equipped with cameras and video, there is no graphic evidence of deliberate massacre…Nor did Khadafy ever threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The 'no mercy' warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libya's leader promised amnesty for those 'who throw their weapons away'. Khadafy even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight 'to the bitter end'". In a bitter irony, what evidence there is of massacres, committed by both sides, is now to be found in Tripoli in recent days, months after NATO imposed its "life-saving" military measures. Revenge killings are daily being reported with greater frequency, including the wholesale slaughter of black Libyans and African migrants by rebel forces. Another sad irony: in Benghazi, which the insurgents have held for months now, well after Gaddafi forces were repulsed, not even that has prevented violence: revenge killings have been reported there too — more under #6 below. 4. African Mercenaries. Patrick Cockburn summarized the functional utility of the myth of the "African mercenary" and the context in which it arose: "Since February, the insurgents, often supported by foreign powers, claimed that the battle was between Gaddafi and his family on the one side and the Libyan people on the other. Their explanation for the large pro-Gaddafi forces was that they were all mercenaries, mostly from black Africa, whose only motive was money". As he notes, black prisoners were put on display for the media (which is a violation of the Geneva Convention), but Amnesty International later found that all the prisoners had supposedly been released since none of them were fighters, but rather were undocumented workers from Mali, Chad, and west Africa. The myth was useful for the opposition to insist that this was a war between "Gaddafi and the Libyan people," as if he had no domestic support at all — an absolute and colossal fabrication such that one would think only little children could believe a story so fantastic. The myth is also useful for cementing the intended rupture between "the new Libya" and Pan-Africanism, realigning Libya with Europe and the "modern world" which some of the opposition so explicitly crave. The "African mercenary" myth, as put into deadly, racist practice, is a fact that paradoxically has been both documented and ignored. Months ago I provided an extensive review of the role of the mainstream media, led by Al Jazeera, as well as the seeding of social media, in creating the African mercenary myth. Among the departures from the norm of vilifying Sub-Saharan Africans and black Libyans that instead documented the abuse of these civilians, were the Los Angeles Times, Human Rights Watch which found no evidence of any mercenaries at all in eastern Libya (totally contradicting the claims presented as truth by Al Arabiya and The Telegraph, among others such as TIME and The Guardian). In an extremely rare departure from the propaganda about the black mercenary threat which Al Jazeera and its journalists helped to actively disseminate, Al Jazeera produced a single report focusing on the robbing, killing, and abduction of black residents in eastern Libya (now that CBS, Channel 4, and others are noting the racism, Al Jazeera is trying to ambiguously show some interest). Finally, there is some increased recognition of these facts of media collaboration in the racist vilification of the insurgents' civilian victims — see FAIR: "NYT Points Out 'Racist Overtones' in Libyan Disinformation It Helped Spread". The racist targeting and killing of black Libyans and Sub-Saharan Africans continues to the present. Patrick Cockburn and Kim Sengupta speak of the recently discovered mass of "rotting bodies of 30 men, almost all black and many handcuffed, slaughtered as they lay on stretchers and even in an ambulance in central Tripoli". Even while showing us video of hundreds of bodies in the Abu Salim hospital, the BBC dares not remark on the fact that most of those are clearly black people, and even wonders about who might have killed them. This is not a question for the anti-Gaddafi forces interviewed by Sengupta: "'Come and see. These are blacks, Africans, hired by Gaddafi, mercenaries,' shouted Ahmed Bin Sabri, lifting the tent flap to show the body of one dead patient, his grey T-shirt stained dark red with blood, the saline pipe running into his arm black with flies. Why had an injured man receiving treatment been executed?" Recent reports reveal the insurgents engaging in ethnic cleansing against black Libyans in Tawergha, the insurgents calling themselves "the brigade for purging slaves, black skin," vowing that in the "new Libya" black people from Tawergha would be barred from health care and schooling in nearby Misrata, from which black Libyans had already been expelled by the insurgents. Currently, Human Rights Watch has reported: "Dark-skinned Libyans and sub-Saharan Africans face particular risks because rebel forces and other armed groups have often considered them pro-Gadhafi mercenaries from other African countries. We've seen violent attacks and killings of these people in areas where the National Transitional Council took control". Amnesty International has also just reported on the disproportionate detention of black Africans in rebel-controlled Az-Zawiya, as well as the targeting of unarmed, migrant farm workers. Reports continue to mount as this is being written, with other human rights groups finding evidence of the insurgents targeting Sub-Saharan African migrant workers. As the chair of the African Union, Jean Ping, recently stated: "NTC seems to confuse black people with mercenaries. All blacks are mercenaries. If you do that, it means (that the) one-third of the population of Libya, which is black, is also mercenaries. They are killing people, normal workers, mistreating them". (To read more, please consult the list of recent reports that I have compiled.) The "African mercenary" myth continues to be one of the most vicious of all the myths, and the most racist. Even in recent days, newspapers such as the Boston Globe uncritically and unquestioningly show photographs of black victims or black detainees with the immediate assertion that they must be mercenaries, despite the absence of any evidence. Instead we are usually provided with casual assertions that Gaddafi is "known to have" recruited Africans from other nations in the past, without even bothering to find out if those shown in the photos are black Libyans. The lynching of both black Libyans and Sub-Saharan African migrant workers has been continuous, and has neither received any expression of even nominal concern by the U.S. and NATO members, nor has it aroused the interest of the so-called "International Criminal Court". There is as little chance of there being any justice for the victims as there is of anyone putting a stop to these heinous crimes that clearly constitute a case of ethnic cleansing. The media, only now, is becoming more conscious of the need to cover these crimes, having glossed them over for months. 5. Viagra-fueled Mass Rape. The reported crimes and human rights violations of the Gaddafi regime are awful enough as they are that one has to wonder why anyone would need to invent stories, such as that of Gaddafi's troops, with erections powered by Viagra, going on a rape spree. Perhaps it was peddled because it's the kind of story that "captures the imagination of traumatized publics". This story was taken so seriously that some people started writing to Pfizer to get it to stop selling Viagra to Libya, since its product was allegedly being used as a weapon of war. People who otherwise should know better, set out to deliberately misinform the international public. The Viagra story was first disseminated by Al Jazeera, in collaboration with its rebel partners, favoured by the Qatari regime that funds Al Jazeera. It was then redistributed by almost all other major Western news media. Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, appeared before the world media to say that there was "evidence" that Gaddafi distributed Viagra to his troops in order "to enhance the possibility to rape" and that Gaddafi ordered the rape of hundreds of women. Moreno-Ocampo insisted: "We are getting information that Qaddafi himself decided to rape" and that "we have information that there was a policy to rape in Libya those who were against the government". He also exclaimed that Viagra is "like a machete," and that "Viagra is a tool of massive rape". In a startling declaration to the UN Security Council, U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice also asserted that Gaddafi was supplying his troops with Viagra to encourage mass rape. She offered no evidence whatsoever to back up her claim. Indeed, U.S. military and intelligence sources flatly contradicted Rice, telling NBC News that "there is no evidence that Libyan military forces are being given Viagra and engaging in systematic rape against women in rebel areas". Rice is a liberal interventionist who was one of those to persuade Obama to intervene in Libya. She utilized this myth because it helped her make the case at the UN that there was no "moral equivalence" between Gaddafi's human rights abuses and those of the insurgents. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also declared that "Gadhafi's security forces and other groups in the region are trying to divide the people by using violence against women and rape as tools of war, and the United States condemns this in the strongest possible terms". She added that she was "deeply concerned" by these reports of "wide-scale rape". (She has, thus far, said nothing at all about the rebels' racist lynchings.) By June 10, Cherif Bassiouni, who is leading a UN rights inquiry into the situation in Libya, suggested that the Viagra and mass rape claim was part of a "massive hysteria". Indeed, both sides in the war have made the same allegations against each other. Bassiouni also told the press of a case of "a woman who claimed to have sent out 70,000 questionnaires and received 60,000 responses, of which 259 reported sexual abuse". However, his teams asked for those questionnaires, they never received them — "But she's going around the world telling everybody about it…so now she got that information to Ocampo and Ocampo is convinced that here we have a potential 259 women who have responded to the fact that they have been sexually abused," Bassiouni said. He also pointed out that it "did not appear to be credible that the woman was able to send out 70,000 questionnaires in March when the postal service was not functioning". In fact, Bassiouni's team "uncovered only four alleged cases" of rape and sexual abuse: "Can we draw a conclusion that there is a systematic policy of rape? In my opinion we can't". In addition to the UN, Amnesty International's Donatella Rovera said in an interview with the French daily Libération, that Amnesty had "not found cases of rape…Not only have we not met any victims, but we have not even met any persons who have met victims. As for the boxes of Viagra that Gaddafi is supposed to have had distributed, they were found intact near tanks that were completely burnt out". However, this did not stop some news manufacturers from trying to maintain the rape claims, in modified form. The BBC went on to add another layer just a few days after Bassiouni humiliated the ICC and the media: the BBC now claimed that rape victims in Libya faced "honour killings". This is news to the few Libyans I know, who never heard of honour killings in their country. The scholarly literature on Libya turns up little or nothing on this phenomenon in Libya. The honour killings myth serves a useful purpose for keeping the mass rape claim on life support: it suggests that women would not come forward and give evidence, out of shame. Also just a few days after Bassiouni spoke, Libyan insurgents, in collaboration with CNN, made a last-ditch effort to save the rape allegations: they presented a cell phone with a rape video on it, claiming it belonged to a government soldier. The men shown in the video are in civilian clothes. There is no evidence of Viagra. There is no date on the video and we have no idea who recorded it or where. Those presenting the cell phone claimed that many other videos existed, but they were conveniently being destroyed to preserve the "honour" of the victims. 6. Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Having asserted, wrongly as we saw, that Libya faced impending "genocide" at the hands of Gaddafi's forces, it became easier for Western powers to invoke the UN's 2005 doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect. Meanwhile, it is not at all clear that by the time the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1973 that the violence in Libya had even reached the levels seen in Egypt, Syria, and Yemen. The most common refrain used against critics of the selectivity of this supposed "humanitarian interventionism" is that just because the West cannot intervene everywhere does not mean it should not intervene in Libya. Maybe…but that still does not explain why Libya was the chosen target. This is a critical point because some of the earliest critiques of R2P voiced at the UN raised the issue of selectivity, of who gets to decide, and why some crises where civilians are targeted (say, Gaza) are essentially ignored, while others receive maximum concern, and whether R2P served as the new fig leaf for hegemonic geopolitics. The myth at work here is that foreign military intervention was guided by humanitarian concerns. To make the myth work, one has to willfully ignore at least three key realities. One thus has to ignore the new scramble for Africa, where Chinese interests are seen as competing with the West for access to resources and political influence, something that AFRICOM is meant to challenge. Gaddafi challenged AFRICOM's intent to establish military bases in Africa. AFRICOM has since become directly involved in the Libya intervention and specifically "Operation Odyssey Dawn". Horace Campbell argued that "U.S. involvement in the Libyan bombing is being turned into a public relations ploy for AFRICOM" and an "opportunity to give AFRICOM credibility under the facade of the Libyan intervention". In addition, Gaddafi's power and influence on the continent had also been increasing, through aid, investment, and a range of projects designed to lessen African dependency on the West and to challenge Western multilateral institutions by building African unity — rendering him a rival to U.S. interests. Secondly, one has to ignore not just the anxiety of Western oil interests over Gaddafi's "resource nationalism" (threatening to take back what oil companies had gained), an anxiety now clearly manifest in the European corporate rush into Libya to scoop up the spoils of victory — but one has to also ignore the apprehension over what Gaddafi was doing with those oil revenues in supporting greater African economic independence, and for historically backing national liberation movements that challenged Western hegemony. Thirdly, one has to also ignore the fear in Washington that the U.S. was losing a grip on the course of the so-called "Arab revolution". How one can stack up these realities, and match them against ambiguous and partial "humanitarian" concerns, and then conclude that, yes, human rights is what mattered most, seems entirely implausible and unconvincing — especially with the atrocious track record of NATO and U.S. human rights violations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and before that Kosovo and Serbia. The humanitarian angle is simply neither credible nor even minimally logical. If R2P is seen as founded on moral hypocrisy and contradiction — now definitively revealed — it will become much harder in the future to cry wolf again and expect to get a respectful hearing. This is especially the case since little in the way of diplomacy and peaceful negotiation preceded the military intervention — while Obama is accused by some of having been slow to react, this was if anything a rush to war, on a pace that by very far surpassed Bush's invasion of Iraq. Not only do we know from the African Union about how its efforts to establish a peaceful transition were impeded, but Dennis Kucinich also reveals that he received reports that a peaceful settlement was at hand, only to be "scuttled by State Department officials". These are absolutely critical violations of the R2P doctrine, showing how those ideals could instead be used for a practice that involved a hasty march to war, and war aimed at regime change (which is itself a violation of international law). That R2P served as a justifying myth that often achieved the opposite of its stated aims, is no longer a surprise. I am not even speaking here of the role of Qatar and the United Arab Emirates in bombing Libya and aiding the insurgents — even as they backed Saudi military intervention to crush the pro-democracy protests in Bahrain, nor of the ugly pall cast on an intervention led by the likes of unchallenged abusers of human rights who have committed war crimes with impunity in Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan. I am taking a narrower approach — such as the documented cases where NATO not only willfully failed to protect civilians in Libya, but it even deliberately and knowingly targeted them in a manner that constitutes terrorism by most official definitions used by Western governments. NATO admitted to deliberately targeting Libya's state television, killing three civilian reporters, in a move condemned by international journalist federations as a direct violation of a 2006 Security Council resolution banning attacks on journalists. A U.S. Apache helicopter — in a repeat of the infamous killings shown in the Collateral Murder video — gunned down civilians in the central square of Zawiya, killing the brother of the information minister among others. Taking a fairly liberal notion of what constitutes "command and control facilities," NATO targeted a civilian residential space resulting in the deaths of some of Gaddafi's family members, including three grandchildren. As if to protect the myth of "protecting civilians" and the unconscionable contradiction of a "war for human rights," the major news media often kept silent about civilian deaths caused by NATO bombardments. R2P has been invisible when it comes to civilians targeted by NATO. In terms of the failure to protect civilians, in a manner that is actually an international criminal offense, we have the numerous reports of NATO ships ignoring the distress calls of refugee boats in the Mediterranean that were fleeing Libya. In May, 61 African refugees died on a single vessel, despite making contact with vessels belonging to NATO member states. In a repeat of the situation, dozens died in early August on another vessel. In fact, on NATO's watch, at least 1,500 refugees fleeing Libya have died at sea since the war began. They were mostly Sub-Saharan Africans, and they died in multiples of the death toll suffered by Benghazi during the protests. R2P was utterly absent for these people. NATO has developed a peculiar terminological twist for Libya, designed to absolve the rebels of any role in perpetrating crimes against civilians, and abdicating its so-called responsibility to protect. Throughout the war, spokespersons for NATO and for the U.S. and European governments consistently portrayed all of the actions of Gaddafi's forces as "threatening civilians," even when engaged in either defensive actions, or combat against armed opponents. For example, this week the NATO spokesperson, Roland Lavoie, "appeared to struggle to explain how NATO strikes were protecting civilians at this stage in the conflict. Asked about NATO's assertion that it hit 22 armed vehicles near Sirte on Monday, he was unable to say how the vehicles were threatening civilians, or whether they were in motion or parked". By protecting the rebels, in the same breath as they spoke of protecting civilians, it is clear that NATO intended for us to see Gaddafi's armed opponents as mere civilians. Interestingly, in Afghanistan, where NATO and the U.S. fund, train, and arm the Karzai regime in attacking "his own people" (like they do in Pakistan), the armed opponents are consistently labeled "terrorists" or "insurgents" — even if the majority of them are civilians who have never served in any official standing army. They are insurgents in Afghanistan, and their deaths at the hands of NATO are listed separately from the tallies for civilian casualties. By some magic, in Libya, they are all "civilians". In response to the announcement of the UN Security Council voting for military intervention, a volunteer translator for Western reporters in Tripoli made this key observation: "Civilians holding guns, and you want to protect them? It's a joke. We are the civilians. What about us?" NATO has provided a shield for the insurgents in Libya to victimize unarmed civilians in areas they came to occupy. There was no hint of any "responsibility to protect" in these cases. NATO assisted the rebels in starving Tripoli of supplies, subjecting its civilian population to a siege that deprived them of water, food, medicine, and fuel. When Gaddafi was accused of doing this to Misrata, the international media were quick to cite this as a war crime. Save Misrata, kill Tripoli — whatever you want to label such "logic," humanitarian is not an acceptable option. Leaving aside the documented crimes by the insurgents against black Libyans and African migrant workers, the insurgents were also found by Human Rights Watch to have engaged in "looting, arson, and abuse of civilians in [four] recently captured towns in western Libya". In Benghazi, which the insurgents have held for months now, revenge killings have been reported by The New York Times as late as this May, and by Amnesty International in late June and faulted the insurgents' National Transitional Council. The responsibility to protect? It now sounds like something deserving wild mockery. 7. Gaddafi —the Demon. Depending on your perspective, either Gaddafi is a heroic revolutionary, and thus the demonization by the West is extreme, or Gaddafi is a really bad man, in which case the demonization is unnecessary and absurd. The myth here is that the history of Gaddafi's power was marked only by atrocity — he is thoroughly evil, without any redeeming qualities, and anyone accused of being a "Gaddafi supporter" should somehow feel more ashamed than those who openly support NATO. This is binary absolutism at its worst — virtually no one made allowance for the possibility that some might neither support Gaddafi, the insurgents, nor NATO. Everyone was to be forced into one of those camps, no exceptions allowed. What resulted was a phony debate, dominated by fanatics of one side or another. Missed in the discussion, recognition of the obvious: however much Gaddafi had been "in bed" with the West over the past decade, his forces were now fighting against a NATO-driven take over of his country. The other result was the impoverishment of historical consciousness, and the degradation of more complex appreciations of the full breadth of the Gaddafi record. This would help explain why some would not rush to condemn and disown the man (without having to resort to crude and infantile caricaturing of their motivations) . While even Glenn Greenwald feels the need to dutifully insert, "No decent human being would possibly harbor any sympathy for Gadaffi," I have known decent human beings in Nicaragua, Trinidad, Dominica, and among the Mohawks in Montreal who very much appreciate Gaddafi's support — not to mention his support for various national liberation movements, including the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. Gaddafi's regime has many faces: some are seen by his domestic opponents, others are seen by recipients of his aid, and others were smiled at by the likes of Silvio Berlusconi, Nicolas Sarkozy, Condoleeza Rice, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. There are many faces, and they are all simultaneously real. Some refuse to "disown" Gaddafi, to "apologize" for his friendship towards them, no matter how distasteful, indecent, and embarrassing other "progressives" may find him. That needs to be respected, instead of this now fashionable bullying and gang banging that reduces a range of positions to one juvenile accusation: "you support a dictator". Ironically, we support many dictators, with our very own tax dollars, and we routinely offer no apologies for this fact. Speaking of the breadth of Gaddafi's record, that ought to resist simplistic, revisionist reduction, some might care to note that even now, the U.S. State Department's webpage on Libya still points to a Library of Congress Country Study on Libya that features some of the Gaddafi government's many social welfare achievements over the years in the areas of medical care, public housing, and education. In addition, Libyans have the highest literacy rate in Africa (see UNDP, p. 171) and Libya is the only continental African nation to rank "high" in the UNDP's Human Development Index. Even the BBC recognized these achievements: "Women in Libya are free to work and to dress as they like, subject to family constraints. Life expectancy is in the seventies. And per capita income—while not as high as could be expected given Libya's oil wealth and relatively small population of 6.5m—is estimated at $12,000 (£9,000), according to the World Bank. Illiteracy has been almost wiped out, as has homelessness—a chronic problem in the pre-Gaddafi era, where corrugated iron shacks dotted many urban centres around the country". So if one supports health care, does that mean one supports dictatorship? And if "the dictator" funds public housing and subsidizes incomes, do we simply erase those facts from our memory? 8. Freedom Fighters—the Angels. The complement to the demonization of Gaddafi was the angelization of the "rebels". My aim here is not to counter the myth by way of inversion, and demonizing all of Gaddafi's opponents, who have many serious and legitimate grievances, and in large numbers have clearly had more than they can bear. I am instead interested in how "we," in the North Atlantic part of the equation, construct them in ways that suit our intervention. One standard way, repeated in different ways across a range of media and by U.S. government spokespersons, can be seen in this New York Times' depiction of the rebels as "secular-minded professionals — lawyers, academics, businesspeople — who talk about democracy, transparency, human rights and the rule of law". The listing of professions familiar to the American middle class which respects them, is meant to inspire a shared sense of identification between readers and the Libyan opposition, especially when we recall that it is on the Gaddafi side where the forces of darkness dwell: the main "professions" we find are torturer, terrorist, and African mercenary. For many weeks it was almost impossible to get reporters embedded with the rebel National Transitional Council in Benghazi to even begin to provide a description of who constituted the anti-Gaddafi movement, if it was one organization or many groups, what their agendas were, and so forth. The subtle leitmotif in the reports was one that cast the rebellion as entirely spontaneous and indigenous — which may be true, in part, and it may also be an oversimplification. Among the reports that significantly complicated the picture were those that discussed the CIA ties to the insurgents (for more, see this, this, this, and that); others highlighted the role of the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute, and USAID, which have been active in Libya since 2005; those that detailed the role of various expatriate groups; and, reports of the active role of "radical Islamist" militias embedded within the overall insurgency, with some pointing to Al Qaeda connections. Some feel a definite need for being on the side of "the good guys," especially as neither Iraq nor Afghanistan offer any such sense of righteous vindication. Americans want the world to see them as doing good, as being not only indispensable, but also irreproachable. They could wish for nothing better than being seen as atoning for their sins in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is a special moment, where the bad guy can safely be the other once again. A world that is safe for America is a world that is unsafe for evil. Marching band, baton twirlers, Anderson Cooper, confetti — we get it. 9. Victory for the Libyan People. To say that the current turn in Libya represents a victory by the Libyan people in charting their own destiny is, at best, an oversimplification that masks the range of interests involved since the beginning in shaping and determining the course of events on the ground, and that ignores the fact that for much of the war Gaddafi was able to rely on a solid base of popular support. As early as February 25, a mere week after the start of the first street protests, Nicolas Sarkozy had already determined that Gaddafi "must go". By February 28, David Cameron began working on a proposal for a no-fly zone — these statements and decisions were made without any attempt at dialogue and diplomacy. By March 30, The New York Times reported that for "several weeks" CIA operatives had been working inside Libya, which would mean they were there from mid-February, that is, when the protests began — they were then joined inside Libya by "dozens of British special forces and MI6 intelligence officers". The NYT also reported in the same article that "several weeks" before (again, around mid-February) , President Obama Several "signed a secret finding authorizing the CIA to provide arms and other support to Libyan rebels," with that "other support" entailing a range of possible "covert actions". USAID had already deployed a team to Libya by early March. At the end of March, Obama publicly stated that the objective was to depose Gaddafi. In terribly suspicious wording, "a senior U.S. official said the administration had hoped that the Libyan uprising would evolve 'organically,' like those in Tunisia and Egypt, without need for foreign intervention"—which sounds like exactly the kind of statement one makes when something begins in a fashion that is not "organic" and when comparing events in Libya as marked by a potential legitimacy deficit when compared to those of Tunisia and Egypt. Yet on March 14 the NTC's Abdel Hafeez Goga asserted, "We are capable of controlling all of Libya, but only after the no-fly zone is imposed" — which is still not the case even six months later. In recent days it has also been revealed that what the rebel leadership swore it would oppose — "foreign boots on the ground" — is in fact a reality confirmed by NATO: "Special forces troops from Britain, France, Jordan and Qatar on the ground in Libya have stepped up operations in Tripoli and other cities in recent days to help rebel forces as they conducted their final advance on the Gadhafi regime". This, and other summaries, are only scratching the surface of the range of external support provided to the rebels. The myth here is that of the nationalist, self-sufficient rebel, fueled entirely by popular support. At the moment, war supporters are proclaiming the intervention a "success". It should be noted that there was another case where an air campaign, deployed to support local armed militia on the ground, aided by U.S. covert military operatives, also succeeded in deposing another regime, and even much more quickly. That case was Afghanistan. Success. 10. Defeat for "the Left". As if reenacting the pattern of articles condemning "the left" that came out in the wake of the Iran election protests in 2009 (see as examples Hamid Dabashi and Slavoj Žižek), the war in Libya once again seemed to have presented an opportunity to target the left, as if this was topmost on the agenda — as if "the left" was the problem to be addressed. Here we see articles, in various states of intellectual and political disrepair, by Juan Cole (see some of the rebuttals: "The case of Professor Juan Cole," "An open letter to Professor Juan Cole: A reply to a slander," "Professor Cole 'answers' WSWS on Libya: An admission of intellectual and political bankruptcy"), Gilbert Achcar (and this especially), Immanuel Wallerstein, and Helena Sheehan who seemingly arrived at some of her most critical conclusions at the airport at the end of her very first visit to Tripoli. There seems to be some confusion over roles and identities. There is no homogeneous left, nor ideological agreement among anti-imperialists (which includes conservatives and libertarians, among anarchists and Marxists). Nor was the "anti-imperialist left" in any position to either do real harm on the ground, as is the case of the actual protagonists. There was little chance of the anti-interventionis ts in influencing foreign policy, which took shape in Washington before any of the serious critiques against intervention were published. These points suggest that at least some of the critiques are moved by concerns that go beyond Libya, and that even have very little to do with Libya ultimately. The most common accusation is that the anti-imperialist left is somehow coddling a dictator. The argument is that this is based on a flawed analysis — in criticizing the position of Hugo Chávez, Wallerstein says Chávez's analysis is deeply flawed, and offers this among the criticisms: "The second point missed by Hugo Chavez's analysis is that there is not going to be any significant military involvement of the western world in Libya" (yes, read it again). Indeed, many of the counterarguments deployed against the anti-interventionis t left echo or wholly reproduce the top myths that were dismantled above, that get their geopolitical analysis almost entirely wrong, and that pursue politics focused in part on personality and events of the day. This also shows us the deep poverty of politics premised primarily on simplistic and one-sided ideas of "human rights" and "protection" (see Richard Falk's critique), and the success of the new military humanism in siphoning off the energies of the left. And a question persists: if those opposed to intervention were faulted for providing a moral shield for "dictatorship" (as if imperialism was not itself a global dictatorship) , what about those humanitarians who have backed the rise of xenophobic and racist militants who by so many accounts engage in ethnic cleansing? Does it mean that the pro-interventionist crowd is racist? Do they even object to the racism? So far, I have heard only silence from those quarters. The agenda in brow-beating the anti-imperialist straw man masks an effort to curb dissent against an unnecessary war that has prolonged and widened human suffering; advanced the cause of war corporatists, transnational firms, and neoliberals; destroyed the legitimacy of multilateral institutions that were once openly committed to peace in international relations; violated international law and human rights; witnessed the rise of racist violence; empowered the imperial state to justify its continued expansion; violated domestic laws; and reduced the discourse of humanitarianism to a clutch of simplistic slogans, reactionary impulses, and formulaic policies that privilege war as a first option. Really, the left is the problem here? Maximilian Forte is an associate professor in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada. His website can be found at http://openanthropo logy.org/ as can his previous articles on Libya and other facets of imperialism. ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= == Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messages Stop NATO website and articles: http://rickrozoff. wordpress. comTo subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status: stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==== - 7.
-
Wed Aug 31, 2011 7:33 pm (PDT) http://www.chinadai ly.com.cn/ opinion/2011- 09/01/content_ 13569515. htm China Daily September 1, 2011 Not a real success for NATO By An Huihou The author is a researcher with Beijing-based China Foundation for International Studies, and China's former ambassador to Algeria, Tunisia, Lebanon and Egypt -NATO may have helped the rebels seize power but it is a loser in terms of morality and justice. The United Nations Security Council authorized NATO to impose a no-fly zone in Libya to prevent loss of civilian lives. But NATO has defeated this purpose by prolonging and expanding the civil conflict that has cost thousands of civilians their lives and rendered tens of thousands homeless. -The first decade of the 21st century has seen the US led Western forces into two wars to topple regimes, Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. Western forces, no doubt, have overthrown regimes. But are they true victors? The war in Iraq was the turning point for US hegemony, and the decade-long war in Afghanistan has put the US and its allies in a dilemma. On July 31, British Secretary of State for Defence Liam Fox said Libyan rebel forces "have very limited ground potential", while French Defense Minister Gerard Longuet told reporters that they were prepared for a "protracted conflict". But only three weeks later, the rebel forces entered Tripoli. There is little doubt they did so with immense support from Western powers. According to The New York Times, European countries such as the United Kingdom and France sent their special forces to train the rebels in Libya. It was a move which, CNN quoting a NATO official said, helped the rebels gain massive strength in such a short time. In fact, on Aug 23, Longuet admitted to having sent weapons and "technical staff" to Libya. Apart from helping the Libyan rebels in every way possible, Western countries also bribed some of Muammar Gadhafi's officials, which is exactly what the United States had done with Iraqi officials before invading that country in 2003. The People's Daily has reported that most of Gadhafi's senior military officers, including a brigadier in charge of Gadhafi's personal security, had been bribed. No wonder, the brigadier ordered surrender of his troops at a critical time to allow the rebel forces to enter Tripoli without much resistance. It is clear, too, that NATO helped the rebels throughout their push toward Tripoli. But that does not necessarily mean NATO has been successful in the civil war. NATO may have helped the rebels seize power but it is a loser in terms of morality and justice. The United Nations Security Council authorized NATO to impose a no-fly zone in Libya to prevent loss of civilian lives. But NATO has defeated this purpose by prolonging and expanding the civil conflict that has cost thousands of civilians their lives and rendered tens of thousands homeless. The US-based National Catholic Register's comment on the Libyan civil war, made earlier, seems apt: "Broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake." But that is exactly what has happened. Instead of demonstrating NATO's strength, the capture of Tripoli has exposed its deficiencies and weaknesses. Under the heavy fire of NATO jets, Gadhafi's troops armed with not-so-modern weapons stood their ground for five months, forcing Western powers to intervene directly. As some Western newspapers said earlier, whether or not Gadhafi loses power, the Western alliance is already a loser for wasting huge amounts of taxpayers' money. The situation in Libya can be described, to quote a phrase generally used inside NATO, as a "catastrophic success". The mess in Libya has all the symptoms of becoming a lasting headache for leaders in Brussels and Washington. The rebel forces comprise several people with different, even contradicting, interests including tribes from Libya's eastern region, former officials who betrayed Gadhafi, pro-Western democrats, Islamic extremists and Al-Qaida terrorists. It is hard to imagine that they will remain united in post-Gadhafi Libya. Besides, the civil war has intensified tribal rivalry, for long a feature of Libyan body politic. The tribes that supported Gadhafi are not likely to take things lying down as the new game for power is played out. Many observers fear that Libya could go the way of Somalia or Iraq. That definitely cannot be good news for the Western powers. Experience tells us how easy it is for a country with Muslim majority population to fall prey to Islamic extremists, and there is every possibility of post-Gadhafi Libya becoming one. So does Libya teach us something? Western observers love to say that NATO's "success" in Libya will encourage protesters in other Middle East and North African countries such as Syria. But they refuse to see or hear what Syrian protesters want. It is true that Syrian protesters shouted "Bye Gaddafi, Bashar next" after Libyan rebels captured Tripoli, but it is also true that they don't want foreign forces to intervene in their country. They realize that political problems should be solved through political means rather than violence or foreign intervention. After all, they know that all foreign intervening forces serve their own purpose not the victims'. This is as true today as it was in the past. The first decade of the 21st century has seen the US led Western forces into two wars to topple regimes, Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. Western forces, no doubt, have overthrown regimes. But are they true victors? The war in Iraq was the turning point for US hegemony, and the decade-long war in Afghanistan has put the US and its allies in a dilemma. Libya, too, is a bad example of Western intervention in developing countries. Political problems can no longer be solved with force. The US should learn from its past experiences and stop regaling in its mythical glory, for it will benefit none and harm all. China has long been advocating the use of negotiations to solve political problems, and has always opposed foreign intervention in any country. China respects the choice of the Libyan people and is willing to play a role in the reconstruction of their country, for irrespective of what happens in Libya, China will always remain a friend of the Libyan people. ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= = Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messagesStop NATO website and articles: http://rickrozoff. wordpress. comTo subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status: stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==== - 8.
-
Wed Aug 31, 2011 7:52 pm (PDT) http://en.trend. az/regions/ world/europe/ 1924846.htmlTrend News Agency August 31, 2011 Serbs in Kosovo block main road in north Local Serbs blocked the main road in northern Kosovo on Wednesday, opposing investigations by EU Rule of Law (EULEX) police in the village of Zupce, close to Kosovska Mitrovica, Xinhua reported. Following investigating action by EULEX on the day, "local Serbs gathered in Zupce and blocked the road between Kosovska Mitrovica and Zubin Potok, including some alternative roads in that region," said Kosovo police spokesman Besim Hoti in Kosovska Mitrovica. EULEX police supported by NATO-led peacekeeping forces (KFOR) searched four houses in the municipality of Zubin Potok related to the killing of Kosovo police officer Enver Zymberi on July 26 and the demolition of a crossing border point with Serbia. According to Hoti, more citizens of the localities in the vicinity joined the group of protesters. EULEX officials confirmed the investigation was related to the killing of Kosovo police officer. "EULEX investigations are conducted together with Kosovo police and supported by KFOR. Four houses were searched, and significant materials, including weapons were confiscated, " said Irena Gudeljevic, EULEX spokesperson. She announced further investigations and actions by EULEX in the future. EULEX operation started after midnight and ended in the morning. None was arrested in the operation. Trouble in Serb-dominated northern part of Kosovo started on July 25 when Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaci sent Special Police to gain control in two northern crossing border points with Serbia. Local Serbs reacted by barricading roads and in a fire exchange a member of Kosovo special police was killed. Kosovo unilaterally declared independence in 2008, but Serbia steadfastly refuses to recognize the secession of its southern province and is pursuing an official policy of dialogue to reach a consensus on outstanding issues between Pristina and Belgrade. ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= == Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messages Stop NATO website and articles: http://rickrozoff. wordpress. comTo subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status: stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==== - 9.
-
Wed Aug 31, 2011 7:52 pm (PDT) http://en.trend. az/regions/ scaucasus/ georgia/1924836. html Trend News Agency August 31, 2011 Another Georgian military killed in Afghanistan N. Kirtskhalia Tbilisi: Another Georgian military killed in Afghanistan during the execution of a peacekeeping mission. As reported to Trend by the Georgian Defense Ministry, Sergeant Revaz Beridze, who died in the performance of his duty, served in the third infantry brigade of the Georgian Defense Ministry in the ISAF. He died from wounds received on patrol during a Taliban attack in Helmand province territory. Beridze served in the Armed Forces of Georgia since 2002 and during that time participated in peacekeeping operations in Iraq. ... This is the ninth Georgian soldier who was killed in Afghanistan. At the moment there are 900 Georgian troops in Afghanistan and the number of troops will be increased to 1,500 by the new year. ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= == Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messagesStop NATO website and articles: http://rickrozoff. wordpress. comTo subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status: stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==== - 10.
-
Wed Aug 31, 2011 8:01 pm (PDT) http://news. xinhuanet. com/english2010/ world/2011- 09/01/c_13108806 8.htm Xinhua News Agency September 1, 2011 Ecuador denounces military intervention in Libya QUITO: The Ecuadorian government on Wednesday expressed its rejection of the foreign military intervention in Libya, calling on all parties involved in the war to stop violating human rights and provide a peaceful, democratic and sovereign solution. "The government of Ecuador reiterates its strongest rejection of the foreign military intervention in Libya, and insists that this be included in the related interpretation of events through the resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security Council," the Foreign Ministry said in a statement. "Unfortunately, the resolutions have been used to justify a war bound for aggression, and ultimately to control Libyan natural resources, with the argument that this is done to defend a civilian population that has been systematically bombarded by those who claim they have intervened in its defense," the statement said. It urged the international community to remain vigilant so that other countries in the region and elsewhere in the world would not suffer the same fate. Ecuador has repeatedly criticized the military intervention in Libya by forces under NATO command. Libya, which had been relatively stable under the rule of Muammar Gaddafi, has been plunged into turmoil since early February when anti-Gaddafi protests broke out in cities across the country... Last Tuesday, rebel forces supported by NATO air raids succeeded in taking control over Gaddafi's official residence in the capital of Tripoli, from where he has ruled Libya since 1969. ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= == Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messages Stop NATO website and articles: http://rickrozoff. wordpress. comTo subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status: stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==== - 11.
-
Wed Aug 31, 2011 8:19 pm (PDT) http://blackstarnew s.com/news/ 135/ARTICLE/ 7610/2011- 08-31.html Black Star News August 31, 2011 NATO's Deceitful Libya War of Aggression and Meaning for Africa By Colin Benjamin Since last week, Western leaders, NATO — and their friends in the puppet propaganda press, sometimes referred to as "mainstream" media—have been celebrating the usurpation of Libya into the hands of the armed insurrectionist "rebels." But how will history judge the West's imperial interference, in Libya, and what does this awful episode portend for other African countries? Last week, the Benghazi "rebels" advanced into Tripoli, their path paved by NATO's bombardment of Libya's military installations and even civilian facilities. With much of the Libyan political infrastructure now in the hands of the "rebels," Western leaders have been gloating about their imperial intervention in toppling Colonel Muammar Quathafi's government. Mr. Quathafi remains at large; with a million-dollar bounty on his head. Several members of the Quathafi family are now said to be in Algeria, including his wife, Safiya, daughter Aisha, and two of his sons, Mohammed and Hannibal. Many have interpreted this development as proof of Quathafi's capitulation. Yet, Quathafi spokesman, Moussa Ibrahim has warned "We will turn Libya into a volcano of lava and fire under the feet of the invaders and their treacherous agents." His son Seif al-Islam has also broadcast a message saying loyalists will continue to fight. Rumors are swirling around the whereabouts of the colonel. Some say he's in eastern Libyan region, possibly his hometown of Sirte, or, in southern Libya along the border. The so-called "Transitional National Council" has issued a warning to the people of Sirte to surrender by Saturday, or, face military action. NATO — which, purportedly, interfered into this conflict to "save civilians" — is, reportedly, already bombing and shelling Sirte, which is 500 miles from Tripoli. Moussa Ibrahim claims 1,000 civilians were killed, says an article in The New York Times. There have been speculation whether Quatahfi is preparing to flee, or, has already fled. An official in the Nicaraguan government says President Daniel Ortega would consider giving Quathafi asylum, if he requested it. There was even rumor that Quathafi is in Zimbabwe. No doubt several African leaders—given Quathafi's largess in supporting Africa's political progress—are willing to help him obtain safe passage. Quathafi has supported liberation struggles throughout Africa including in: Angola, Mozambique, Namibia, Zimbabwe and South Africa. It has been said that South Africa's President Jacob Zuma would help the Libyan leader escape but wouldn't offer him exile. Recall that when Western governments, including the United States under President Ronald Reagan's "constructive engagement" policy were doing business with South Africa's apartheid government, Quathafi supported the African National Congress and then-imprisoned leaders like Nelson Mandela. Indeed, Mandela violated a U.N. flight embargo on Libya, traveling there after his release from 27 years in prison. President Bill Clinton criticized Mandela's Libyan visit as "unwelcome." Mandela retorted "No country can claim to be the policeman of the world and no state can dictate to another what it should do--Those that yesterday were friends of our enemies have the gall today to tell me not to visit my brother Gaddafi, they are advising us to be ungrateful and forget our friends of the past." Indeed, Quathafi, for all his faults, has been a faithful friend of Africa. Can we say the same for Arab leaders, especially those in Africa, who exhibit racist tendencies like their Western masters? Consider the ongoing ethnic cleansing of Black people in the "new" Libya, ignored by the corporate media, until The Guardian mentioned it again this week; two months after The Wall Street Journal first reported it on June 21, 2011. Moreover, has any Western country done more for Africa than Libya under Quathafi? Think of it; what has the West done for Africa besides raping and pillaging the continent and its people to this very day? From the very beginning, Western leaders used deception to frame and distort the image of Quathafi as a maniacal madman who was about to slaughter — en masse — Libyan civilians. This was a lie calculated to gain approval, from Western citizens, for waging war of aggression against the Libyan Government. When have Western capitalists ever cared about the slaughter of non-white civilians? Where was NATO during the genocides in the Congo and Rwanda? We read that the "international community" is united against Quathafi. True: if the "international community" comprises only the world's White ruling elite and nations under their umbrella of domination. Question: how can the United Nations deem itself a "democratic" institution when only five countries have veto power? Why was the opposition to NATO's war, by many U.N. member states, including those in the African Union, treated as inconsequential if they really care about "international" consensus? Instead, the Troika - the U.S., U.K., and France - play up what their Arab political lackeys, in the Arab League, like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, say. What about the fact that Libya is an African country? It is laughable mendacity for these avaricious Western phonies to tell the world they're dropping bombs on Libya to "protect civilians." To start with, the notion that an air war can protect civilians from wholesale massacres, on the ground, defies logic. Yet, this dastardly deception has been repeatedly disseminated by those press parrots in corporate media, who fail to properly investigate and inform the people. There are lessons Africans, and others in the "developing" world can learn from the imperial intervention in Libya. First and foremost, this episode illustrates that Africans cannot trust Western governments. Duplicity to further their greedy, geo-political "interests," is the foundation of their foreign policy. Ever since the armed insurrection that Washington, London and Paris claimed was a populist protest started in Libya, it was argued that Quathafi was an undemocratic despot who had ruled for too long. So what about the pro-West vicious despots in Yemen or Bahrain? This deceitful double-standard speaks loudly in the different approaches the West took in regards to former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. During the authentic Egyptian mass protests against this tyrant who stole a reported up to $70 billion, the West warned protesters to be non-violent; even when Mubarak unleashed his assorted mercenary thugs. However, the West endorsed armed insurrection by the terrorist Benghazi "rebels" from the beginning of their "protest." Why didn't they admonish these "rebels" to be non-violent, as they insisted from the Egyptian masses? The truth is Mubarak is an example of the type of obsequious lackeys Western officials always support. Mubarak helped in aiding the oppression of the Palestinians, especially, with his assistance in cutting-off passage into the Gaza Strip. America furnished Mubarak with massive aid, in part, for doing this. It should be noted Quathafi supported the Palestinian Liberation Organization in its struggle for an independent state. The truth is: the West doesn't like non-conformist leaders they can't control. Caught flat-footed by the "Arab Spring" protests, the West jumped at the chance to help the Al-Qaida-connected Benghazi "rebels." Read the Sinjar Records Report, done at West Point Military Academy's Joint Terrorism Unit on this connection The support escalated even after The Wall Street Journal reported on April 2 that one of the "rebel" leaders was a former Mujahedeen, Abdel Hakim al-Hasady, who had fought against the U.S. in Afghanistan. In the interview, Hasady, told The Wall Street Journal: "Our view is starting to change of the U.S. - If we hated the Americans 100%, today it is less than 50%..." Today, The New York Times reported that this same man has been installed as military commander in Tripoli. Thanks to NATO. The African Union, and all Africans, must stand up and object to the West's diplomatic duplicity. A blueprint for the attack on African states was created in the Libyan War. What's to stop them from repeating this meddlesome agenda elsewhere and everywhere in Africa? ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= == Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messages Stop NATO website and articles: http://rickrozoff. wordpress. comTo subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status: stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==== - 12.
-
Thu Sep 1, 2011 5:21 am (PDT) - 13.
-
Thu Sep 1, 2011 5:46 am (PDT) http://english. ruvr.ru/2011/ 09/01/55513796. htmlVoice of Russia September 1, 2011 British Gaddafi hunters breach UN resolution Sergei Sayenko -[T]he participation of British Apache helicopters and SAS soldiers in searches for Gaddafi on the territory of Libya testifies to a ground operation and is a direct violation of the UN resolution. Apparently, Britain doesn't recognize the authority of the UN any more and considers it possible to act as it pleases... David Cameron...told Sir Simon Bryant in no uncertain terms that the military must wage wars and he must assume the command. Given that the British prime minister is an ardent supporter of the Libyan campaign, the British special forces are free to launch a hunt for Gaddafi, confident that official London will provide them with an appropriate "cover". A large number of British Special Air Service officers are in Libya hunting for Muammar Gaddafi, who they believe is still in the country, ITV television reports. Britain's Ministry of Defense refused to confirm the report, adding that it was government policy not to comment on special forces operations. This can be seen as glaring proof that British special forces have launched searches for the fugitive strongman, particularly after reports that neighboring Algeria denied him entry and didn't even envisage granting him asylum. All this adds to the assumption that Col Gaddafi must still be in Libya. Judging by the activity of British special forces in Libya, Britain, a key member of the NATO-led campaign in Libya, is determined to take Libya's long-serving ruler, dead or alive. What British SAS officers are doing in Libya is hard to explain, given that UN Resolution 1973 allows for a no-fly zone over Libya for the protection of civilians but forbids a ground operation in the country. However, the participation of British Apache helicopters and SAS soldiers in searches for Gaddafi on the territory of Libya testifies to a ground operation and is a direct violation of the UN resolution. Apparently, Britain doesn't recognize the authority of the UN any more and considers it possible to act as it pleases. All this is happening despite that fact that the Libyan operation costs Britain a pretty penny. Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander said recently that Britain's expenditures for military operations in Libya would cost millions of pounds. According to British military experts, the funds spent on Libya may amount to one billion pounds this autumn. Given the current financial difficulties, the British economy may crack under the burden. Top military officers are worried that the Libyan operation may undermine the country's Armed Forces. Air Chief Marshal Sir Simon Bryant said recently that participation of British air forces in NATO's mission in Libya could wear out equipment and personnel to such a point that future operations by the Royal Air Force would have to be cancelled. Sir Simon is echoed by First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff Sir Mark Stanhope, who says that the Royal Air Force will face a severe trial should the Libya operation drag on. This opinion, however, is evoking little response from David Cameron, who told Sir Simon Bryant in no uncertain terms that the military must wage wars and he must assume the command. Given that the British prime minister is an ardent supporter of the Libyan campaign, the British special forces are free to launch a hunt for Gaddafi, confident that official London will provide them with an appropriate "cover". ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= == Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messages Stop NATO website and articles: http://rickrozoff. wordpress. comTo subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status: stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==== - 14.
-
Thu Sep 1, 2011 5:46 am (PDT) http://news. xinhuanet. com/english2010/ world/2011- 09/01/c_13109165 8.htm Xinhua News Agency September 1, 2011 Russia warns against NATO anti-missile system buildup MOSCOW: Unrestricted buildup of NATO's missile defense system would force Russia to take responsive measures to protect its strategic containment potential, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Thursday. "The U.S.-European anti-missile system has been building in the parameters defined in Washington, which as the Russian leadership repeatedly said, could create a threat to Russian strategic nuclear forces by the end of the decade," Lavrov said in his speech to students of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations. He said that NATO and the United States did not guarantee that the system would not be used against Russia. "Military experts understand that non-restricted one-sided buildup of the missile defense capabilities would require the other side to compensate to protect its potential of strategic containment, " Lavrov said. He reminded that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev offered in 2008 to sign a legally binding treaty about European security. Besides, Moscow has not yet received any explanations from NATO about the block's eastward expansion, Lavrov said. Moscow has long opposed the deployment of NATO missile defense facilities near its borders, saying they would be a security threat to the country and upset the strategic balance of force in Europe. ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= == Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messagesStop NATO website and articles: http://rickrozoff. wordpress. comTo subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status: stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==== - 15.
-
Thu Sep 1, 2011 5:46 am (PDT) http://www.washingt onpost.com/ world/middle- east/unknown- british-unit- worked-with- nato-traders- to-choke- off-gadhafis- oil-supply/ 2011/09/01/ gIQAKGD7tJ_ story.html Associated Pres September 1, 2011 Unknown British unit worked with NATO, traders to choke off Gadhafi's oil supply PARIS:A previously unknown team of British diplomats and military officials aided Libya's rebels by helping to cut the supply of oil to Moammar Gadhafi's military, an official confirmed Thursday. The team, based in London's foreign ministry, liaised with both NATO forces and the Libyan opposition, helping to coordinate effective tactics to choke off supplies of crude oil, shutter refinery facilities and stem the flow of fuel to the regime. "Over many months, the unit played an important role in restricting the supply of oil to Gadhafi's war machine," the government official said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the previously undisclosed unit. Britain said the team helped identify a major refinery in Zawiya, 19 miles (30 kilometers) from Tripoli, as a key facility for Gadhafi's war effort, and encouraged NATO to use ships to blockade the town's port. Officials in London were also able to provide information on an important oil supply route from the Nafusa mountains... The Zawiya refinery has a capacity of 120,000 barrels per day, the second largest in the country after an eastern complex in Ras Lanouf. Officials said the unit was formed after Prime Minister David Cameron, who is traveling to Paris on Thursday for talks on Libya, vowed to hit Gadhafi using all "diplomatic, military and economic" tools. Junior development minister Alan Duncan, previously an oil trader, is credited with highlighting the importance of choking off Gadhafi's energy supplies. ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= == Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messages Stop NATO website and articles: http://rickrozoff. wordpress. comTo subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status: stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==== - 16.
-
Thu Sep 1, 2011 5:46 am (PDT) http://www.nato. int/nato_ static/assets/ pdf/pdf_2011_ 09/20110901_ 110901-oup- update.pdf North Atlantic Treaty Organization September 1, 2011 NATO and Libya Allied Joint Force Command NAPLES, SHAPE, NATO HQ ... Over the past 24 hours, NATO has conducted the following activities associated with Operation UNIFIED PROTECTOR: Air Operations Since the beginning of the NATO operation (31 March 2011, 06.00GMT) a total of 21,090 sorties, including 7,920 strike sorties, have been conducted. Sorties conducted 31 AUGUST: 110 Strike sorties conducted 31 AUGUST: 34 ... ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= == Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messagesStop NATO website and articles: http://rickrozoff. wordpress. comTo subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status: stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==== - 17.
-
Thu Sep 1, 2011 6:01 am (PDT) http://en.apa. az/news.php? id=154117Azeri Press Agency September 1, 2011 US analyst: "In Europe, "unfinished business" remains in the Balkans, Caucasus, and former Soviet states, and the United States will continue to cooperate closely with Europe on these issues" Isabel Levine Washington: "Most immediately, the EU should take necessary actions to address a considerable list of global challenges and security threats, including regional conflicts, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, state failure...", said Derek Mix, US analyst in European Affairs in the US Congressional Research Service's last report on "The European Union: Foreign and Security Policy" issue, APA's Washington DC correspondent has learned. The report was prepared for the Members and Committees of the Congress. "Over the longer-term, the EU should seek the construction of a rules-based, multilateral world order in which international law, peace, and security are ensured by strong regional and global institutions", Mix noted. The analyst reminds that, in 2004, the EU launched the European Neighborhood Policy to develop deeper political and economic ties with neighboring countries not (or not yet) considered potential members. "The evolution of EU external policies and capabilities ties into a related discussion about the changing structure and dynamics of transatlantic relations. In Europe, "unfinished business" remains in the Balkans, Caucasus, and former Soviet states, and the United States will continue to cooperate closely with Europe on these issues", he noted. However, Mix says, many analysts have observed that the focus of US foreign policy has been gravitating increasingly to the Middle East and Asia over the past decade. This trend, some argue, has made Europe in and of itself less of a US foreign policy priority. "Instead, the political and security aspects of the transatlantic relationship are now mostly about what Europe and the US can do together to address global challenges of joint interest and concern. Many of these challenges pertain to new types of threats that have emerged since the end of the Cold War, threats that require new capabilities to address. At the same time, some analysts perceive an increasingly multi-polar world order in which countries such as China, India, Brazil, and Russia are moving alongside the US and Europe as centers of power", he mentioned. ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= == Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messages Stop NATO website and articles: http://rickrozoff. wordpress. comTo subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status: stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==== Yahoo! Groups A community for small business owners Yahoo! Groups Learn about issues Find support Share Photos photos and more online. Need to Reply? Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily Digest. ![]() |
0 comments:
Post a Comment