PART
plans to attack Libya are ancient. The imperial war machine of the U.S., Britain, France, Italy and its NATO allies are involved in a new military adventure comparable to the events that led to the wars against Yugoslavia and Iraq. The war machine has been mobilized under the umbrella of "humanitarian intervention."
In fact, what they have done the Pentagon and NATO is violating international law to intervene on behalf of a party in combat in Libya in a civil war that they have encouraged and nurtured. Have failed to protect civilians, but have launched a war against the Libyan regime in Tripoli and actively help the Transitional Council based in Benghazi in the fighting against Libyan military.
approach before Colonel Qaddafi, the U.S., Britain, France and its allies worked to destabilize Libya. As confirmed by U.S. government sources, Washington tried several times to change of regime in Tripoli [1]. According to General Wesley Clark, former NATO commander, the Pentagon had active plans to launch a war against Libya. U.S.
and its NATO allies are now embroiled in a new war, which has the obvious characteristics of the wars and invasions of Iraq and the former Yugoslavia.
A large naval armada off the coast of Libya has bombed the country for weeks with the declared objective to overthrow the Libyan regime. At the same time driving the internal divisions in Libya.
systematically spread disinformation. As to Saddam Hussein before him, U.S. and the EU armed and helped Colonel Gaddafi. It is therefore important to hold U.S. and the EU arms sales and training Libyan forces.
Also, as in Iraq, U.S. sponsored another Arab dictator and then betrayed him.
Iraq before the U.S. approach, at the beginning of the Iraq-Iran War, Saddam Hussein was a Soviet ally and Washington considered him an enemy.
The case of Colonel Gaddafi is similar in many ways. Ironically, Gaddafi had warned about the change of regime in 2008 the Arab leaders at a meeting in Damascus under the auspices of the Arab League. Said the "bad habit" of U.S. government to betray their friends Arab dictators:
Why not investigate the Security Council UN hanging of Saddam Hussein? How could they hanged the leader of a State of the Arab League? Not talking about Saddam Hussein's policies or our animosity against him [I mean the other Arab leaders]. We all had our disagreements with him. We also have disagreements among ourselves. Nothing unites us than this room. Why there is no research on the execution of Saddam Hussein?
A whole Arab government it kills and it hangs on the gallows Why? In the future it will also be your fate! [Other Arab officials gathered begin to laugh] Of course!
U.S. fought alongside Saddam Hussein against Khomeini [in Iran-Iraq War]. It was his friend. Cheney was a friend of Saddam Hussein. Rumsfeld, U.S. defense secretary during the bombing of Iraq [in \u200b\u200b2003], was a close friend of Saddam Hussein.
the end betrayed him. I hung up. Even you [the Arab leaders] who are friends of the U.S. -No, rather we say, "Friends of U.S. States States can adopt one day our hanging [2].
After the 1991 Gulf War, U.S. deliberately encouraged open revolt against the regime of Saddam Hussein, but he stopped and watched as Saddam Hussein crushed the revolt by force Iraqis.
in 2011 have done the same against Gadhafi and his regime in Libya. Washington and its allies not only instigated the revolt in Libya, but also the rebels received arms and military advice.
When the U.S. and its allies led the revolt against Saddam in Baghdad after the Gulf War, the U.S., Britain and established Fancia "No-fly zones" over Iraq on the pretext of protecting "the Iraqi people against Saddam." For years systematically attacked Iraq. Bombarded the Iraqi Republic and debelitaron their defense capabilities.
USA Today and its allies have imposed an air exclusion zone over Libya on the pretext of protecting "against Gaddafi the Libyan people." If you wish to protect against Gaddafi the Libyan people, why armed by Gaddafi to start? Why trade made after the riots against the government in 2006 and 2008 in Libya? There's more to this narrative, which is part of a wider march to war.
A new imperial division of Africa: The London Conference
The London Conference on Libya shows as they are members of the coalition against Libya. A clear violation of international law, United States, Britain, France, Germany and its allies are making decisions about the future of Libya before any change in the ground [4]. Democracy is a process that begins at the bottom and the Libyan government is an internal matter to be decided by the Libyans themselves. Decisions can not take them foreign powers that have been the staunchest supporters of the worst dictatorships.
nations gathered at the conference table in London have no right to decide whether Gaddafi should stay or go. It is a sovereign right that only have the Libyans. Participation in the civil war is a violation of international law, such as siding with one of the fields in the civil war.
The London Conference on Libya can be compared to the Berlin Conference of 1884. Unlike 1884, this conference aims to divide the spoils of war in Libya, rather than carving an entire continent. Washington also, instead of staying away and in 1884, is the leading power in the new conference related with the affairs of the African continent.
The U.S. position and its Western European allies is very clear:
The U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the British foreign secretary William Hague, led crisis talks in London between 40 countries and institutions , looking for all finals aimed to stop the bloody attack against the people Gaddafi of Libya.
Although air strikes conducted by NATO forces against Gaddafi that began on March 19 are not intended to oust him, dozens of nations in the talks agreed that the future Libya does not include the dictator at the helm.
"Gaddafi has lost the legitimacy to lead, so we think it should go. We work with the international community to try to achieve that result, "Clinton told reporters.
As he spoke, U.S. officials announced that U.S. ships and submarines in the Mediterranean had fired a volley of cruise missiles against Libyan storage facilities missiles in the area of \u200b\u200bTripoli on Monday afternoon and early Tuesday, the biggest attack in years.
The German foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, echoed Clinton's position:
"One thing is quite clear and have to leave it very clear to Gadhafi: Your time has passed. Must go, "said Westerwelle. "We have to destroy your illusion that there is a way to make it appear that nothing has happened if he manages to cling to power" [4].
The London Conference on Libya, however, not only deals with Libya, but also presents the program of a new imperialist division of the entire African continent. Libya, who became a handicap when Gadhafi changed his mind, will be used to complete the "Union Mediterranean "and as new bridgehead to Africa. It is the beginning of the important steps to be undertaken by U.S. EU and Africa to purge China's increasing pressure.
A new imperial division of Africa, "Operation Dawn of the Odyssey"
The name "Operation Dawn of the Odyssey" is very revealing. Identify the strategic intent and direction of the war against Libya.
The Odyssey is an ancient Greek epic poet Homer's account traces the journey of the hero Odysseus of Ithaca on his return home. The main theme is the "return home. " U.S.
and the imperialist powers are in their own odyssey of "return" to Africa.
The project is also closely related to broader military plans in Southwest Asia and the offensive against Eurasia, which aims ultimately to Russia, China and Central Asia.
Washington's military plans to do with the African and Eurasian landmass that is a super-continent known as Afro-Eurasia. The Afro-Eurasian control is the goal of U.S. strategy U.S.
and NATO have caused a civil war in Libya, as pretext for their enduring plans of military aggression. Launched a systematic campaign of media disinformation, similar to that used against Iraq from 1991 to 2003.
In fact, the media has shown the way to war in Libya as they did in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq. U.S. and his accomplices have also used the atmosphere of popular revolt in the Arab world as a smokescreen to insert and support their own plans in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.
Trophy Libyan Mediterranean
Libyan There is an old proverb that says "when your pocket is empty increase your mistakes. " In this context, the Libyan internal stresses are not dominated by food shortages. This difference Libyan Arab countries like Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Morocco and Jordan [5]. In Libya, the lack of freedom and rampant corruption have created opposition to the regime, which has been used by the U.S. and its allies as a pretext for foreign intervention.
Libya has come a long way since 1951 when it gained independence. In 1975, political scientist described these conditions Henri Habib:
When on 24 December 1951 United Nations granted independence Libya, it was considered one of the poorest and most backward in the world. The population of the time was not more than 1.5 million, 90% were illiterate and had no experience or political knowledge. There were no universities, only a limited number of secondary schools had been established seven years before independence [6].
According Habib poverty status in Libya was the yoke of Ottoman rule followed by an era of European imperialism in the country [7]. Habib said: "They did everything possible to keep the Arabs [of Libya] in a subservient position incapacitating to achieve some progress for themselves or for their country "[8]. It also explains:
The climax of this oppression took place during the Italian administration (from 1911 to 1943) when the Libyans were not only oppressed by the authorities [foreign], but also subject to loss and deprivation of most part of its fertile land which was intended to settlers brought from Italy. The British and French who replaced the Italians in 1943 tried to take root in Libya in various ways of division, to eventually lead to failure of a combination of events and circumstances beyond the control of any nation [9].
Despite political mismanagement and corruption, Libya's oil reserves (discovered in 1959) were used to improve the living standards of its population. Libya has one of the highest living standards in Africa.
Apart from its energy reserves, the Libyan state has played an important role. Libya's energy reserves were nationalized after the 1969 coup against the Libyan monarchy. It should be noted that these energy reserves are a source of wealth in Libya if it would fully privatize the lucrative spoils of war.
To some extent, the isolation of Libya in the past as a pariah state has also played a protective role. While most of the world has been globalized from the economic point of view, the integration of Libya into the global economy has slowed in some sense.
Although large sums of money were stolen and squandered by the family of Gadhafi and his officials in Libya there are social services and benefits such as government housing. It is also noted that none of this means that there is established a neoliberal restructuring and poverty in Libya, because they play a big role.
Until the conflict began in 2011, there was a huge force foreign labor in Libya. Thousands of foreign workers from around the globe came to Libya in search of employment. This included citizens of Turkey, China, Africa, Latin America, the EU Ukraine, and the Arab world.
Neoliberalism and the new Libya, Saif al-Islam Gadhafi and close
From 2001 to 2003, there was a rapprochement between Libya and the U.S. and its EU partners. What changed? Colonel Gaddafi did not stop being a dictator or alter behavior. The approach ended with the challenge of Tripoli to their former colonial masters. Libya had surrendered to the pressures U.S. and the EU and reached a modus vivendi .
credentials as a democrat or dictator Gaddafi never constituted a problem. Neither the use of brute force. The real issue was the subordination.
The force used against the riots in 2006 and 2008 disturbed or even the EU and Washington, who continued "business as usual" with Tripoli. Even U.S. government sources hinted that there was no need to endanger the economic interests of international law problems or justice, such as BP pressured the British government in 2006-7 to advance a prisoner exchange with Libya to protect an oil contract [10].
Almost overnight, Libya became a new fertile ground for U.S. corporations and EU, especially in sectors of energy. These agreements also lucrative military contracts included an order of $ 482 million for military equipment, software training and membership of the EU (including chemical and biological agents) [11].
But Washington demanded two things: the imposition of imperial tribute and the opening of the military and Libyan intelligence to U.S. influence As a result, Libya ended all support for Palestinians and delivered to the U.S. their records on resistance groups opposed to Washington, London, Tel Aviv and its allies. This turned Libya into a "partner" in the "global war on terrorism." Washington could participate in all aspects of Libyan state security:
Although U.S. sanctions Libya were lifted in 2004 and restrictions on foreign aid related to terrorism were terminated in 2006, Congress acted to limit the Bush administration to provide foreign aid to Libya as a means to pressure the government and the Libyan government to solved so that outstanding claims of terrorism. Certification Bush administration's October 2008 [...] finished with permanent restrictions on the supply of U.S. foreign aid contained in appropriations legislation for fiscal 2008 and fiscal 2009. Requests for assistance submitted by the Bush and Obama for fiscal years 2008 and 2009, included funding for programs to return to work with Libyan security forces after "Disengagement 35" with their U.S. counterparts and Libyan support efforts to improve the security capabilities in areas of common interest such as border control, counterterrorism and export and import controls [12].
Libya also has operations in banking and global finance. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York U.S. even granted 73 loans to Arab Banking Corporation (ABC), a bank that is mostly owned by the Central Bank of Libya, for a total of 35,000 million [13]. According to Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont in a complaint to the U.S. Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, and the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Benjamin Bernanke, the bank almost wholly owned by Libya, received more 26,000 million dollars in loans with interest rates near zero for the U.S. Federal Reserve who has returned to lend to U.S. Treasury to a higher interest rate [14] Arab Banking Corporation is currently exempt from the sanctions against Libya and may serve to create a link between Wall Street tax and Benghazi.
Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi was vital in the process of opening Libya to the trade with Washington and the European Union. Saif In 2000 he graduated from a university in Austria and linked closely to foreign partners who became his political advisers and friends.
Reportedly, Prince Andrew of Britain, became a close friend of Saif Al-Islam: as close to Chris Bryant, a leading Labour politician, asked in the House of Commons that the Prince Andrew separated from his position as special trade envoy to the beginning of the conflict with Libya [15].
Tripoli Western advisors played an important role in the definition of Libyan policy. A "new Libya" began to appear under Saif Al-Islam, who pushed for the adoption of neoliberal economic reforms in the style of IMF.
From 2005-2006, Libya began to appear in important social and income disparities. The Libyan Revolutionary Committees Movement was disbanded in large part by Said Al-Islam. If the Committees Movement had continued to exist, it is very likely to have tried to prevent the escalation of the current conflict.
addition, Saif Al-Islam went to London and established ties in Britain with Noman Benotman, former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) [16]. Benotman befriended.
Supported by Said Al-Islam, and Ali Al-Benotman Sallabi, a Libyan citizen living in Qatar (which was on the terrorist list of Tripoli), negotiated a truce between the LIFG and the Libyan government.
also worth noting that all ministers and ambassadors who deserted or abandoned Libya were selected by Saif Al-Islam.
As in the case of the former Yugoslavia in the nineties, the application of neoliberal reforms in Libya created social and income disparities, which in turn contributed to political instability.
Approach with Tripoli and extortion imperial
In late 2008, the U.S. government Tripoli got paid what was equivalent to an "imperial tribute." Libya surrendered and agreed to repair an unfair deal with Washington. It was called "Adjustment Agreement between the U.S. Claims and the Great Socialist People's Arab Jamahiriya. " Under the deal Libya granted 1,300 million dollars to Washington, while Washington would give $ 300 million Libyans. Article 4 of the annex to the agreement states:
Once the contributions reach Fund Account the sum of 1,800 million dollars, the sum of 1,500 million dollars are deposited in the account [account U.S.] and the sum of $ 300 million be deposited in Account B [account of Libya], both of which constitute the receipt of resources under Article III (2) of the Agreement [17].
Despite all this, Libya has remained a relatively rich country. In 2010, Tripoli even made an offer buy part of British Petroleum (BP), one of the largest corporations in the world [18]. The National Oil Company of Libya also remains one of the world's largest oil companies.
Even with the lucrative deals that were the approach, U.S. and the EU did not forget the aim of boosting their profits and control. The powers of the EU and Washington simply wait for the right opportunity. Never abandoned plans to take over Libya and the Libyan energy sector. Washington and Western Europe could not accept anything less than a full fledged puppet regime in Libya.
agitation and the reaction Gaddafi
Even with rapprochement with Tripoli, USA and its EU partners continued to cultivate ties with people and organizations of the "opposition" to implement a regime change at some future date. Therefore the National Salvation Front of Libya has been especially active in Washington. In the mouth of a timely report of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) of February 18, 2011:
The Opposition National Conference for Libya (an umbrella organization of opposition groups led by the NLSF [...] and Internet-based organizers called a "day of anger" took place on 17 February. Similar events were organized by anti-government groups in many other countries in the Middle East and North Africa during the previous month. On 17 February [2011] hundreds of protesters took to the streets in Benghazi and in other cities nearby [19].
Colonel Gaddafi has ruled Libya under a harsh dictatorship that has systematically used violence and fear. However, the level of violence that has put Libya in a state of agitation has been distorted [20]. Many of the initial reports came out of Libya in early 2011 is not verified and in many cases were misleading. These reports are to be explored carefully. According to the same CRS report prepared for the U.S. Congress, all initial reports came from "local media reports [Libyan] amateur video clips and anecdotes and reports from human rights organizations and opposition groups Exile "[21].
Gaddafi objectives are to preserve and not destroy his regime. After Qadhafi realized the growing foreign threat directed against his regime, generally limited the use of force. The regime in Tripoli would not give more excuses to the U.S., the EU and NATO military intervention in Libya. Gaddafi
showed restraint in order to preserve his dictatorship. The Libyan regime knew that a bloody civil war would be used as justification for an intervention with a humanitarian pretext. So Gadhafi decided to attempt to negotiate wherever possible rather than use force. The use of violence is not conducive to the Libyan regime or Libya, but it works for U.S. and EU states.
NOTES
(1) Christopher M. Blanchard and James Zanotti, "Libya: Background and U.S. Relations," Congressional Research Service February 18, 2011, p.12; the source cited is as follows: Joseph T. Stanik, El Dorado Canyon: Reagan’s Undeclared War with Qaddafi, (Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press, 2003); Bernard Gwertzman, “Shultz Advocates U.S. Covert Programs to Depose Qaddafi,” The New York Times, April 28, 1986; and Clifford Krauss, “Failed Anti-Qaddafi Effort Leaves U.S. Picking Up the Pieces,” The New York Times, March 12, 1991.
(2) Muamar Gadafi, discurso en la 20ª Cumbre de la Liga Árabe en Damasco (Dirección:Twentieth Arab League Summit, Damascus, Syria: March 29, 2008).
(3) David Stringer, “Top envoys agree Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi must step down but don’t discuss arming rebels,” Associated Press (AP), March 29, 2011.
(4) Ibid.
(5) This does not mean that the issues in those Arab countries are exclusively economic daily life, for personal freedom and the corrupt regime are also important motivations for public anger in the Arab societies of the States mentioned . What this means is that the issue of financial support is an important factor in these protests. Also reported that protests in Libya in 2008 were related to unemployment, but economic problems are not the driving force behind the events taking place in Libya.
(6) Henri Pierre Habib, Politics and Government of Revolutionary Libya (Montmagny, Québec: Le Cercle de Livre de France Ltée, 1975) p.1.
(7) Ibíd.
(8) Ibíd.
(9) Ibíd.
(10) Blanchard and Zanotti, “Libya: Background and U.S.,” Op. cit., pp.12-13.
(11) European Union, “Twelfth Annual Report According to Article 8(2) of Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP Defining Common Rules Governing Control of Exports of Military Technology and Equipment,” Official Journal of the European Union, vol. 24 (C9) (February 13, 2011): pp.160-162;
(12) Blanchard and Zanotti, “Libya: Background and U.S.,” Op. cit., pp.13-14.
(13) Donal Griffin and Robert Ivry, “Libya-Owned Arab Banking Corp. Drew at Least $5 Billion From Fed in Crisis,” Bloomberg, April 1, 2011.
(14) Bernard Sandards, Letter to Ben S. Bernanke, Timothy Geithner, and John Walsh, March 31, 2011: < http://sanders.senate.gov/graphics/libya_letter.pdf >.
(15) British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) News, “Duque de York debe perder trading post, says Labour MP ", February 29, 2011.
(16) Norman Benotman who organized the defection of Musa Al-Kusa to Britain.
(17) Claims Settlement Agreement Between the United States of America and the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, August 14, 2008, p.4, the CRS report noted also mentions, but makes a mistake about the amount delivered to Libya and says it is "$ 300 billion [U.S. $ 300,000 million]."
(18) Andrew England and Simeon Kerr, "Libya Taking hints at stake in BP," Financial Times, July 5, 2010.
(19) Blanchard and Zanotti, "Libya: Background and U.S.," op cit., P.5; it is worth noting that the two researchers cited Asharq Al-Awsat, Saudi-owned (the specific item cited is as follows: Khaled Mahmoud, "Gaddafi ready for Libya's 'Day of Rage,'" Asharq Al-Awsat , February 9, 2011) that quite interesting makes a link between the earlier protests Libyan 17 February 2006 against cartoons published in Denmark over the Prophet Muhammad that were turned into protests against Gaddafi.
(20) This fact does not justify any so no state violence in Libya, but should be considered. Must also consider the context of violence in Libya.
(21) Blanchard and Zanotti, "Libya: Background and U.S.," op cit., P.5.
© Copyright Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Research, 2011
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a specialist in Middle East and Central Asia. Is Associate Researcher, Center for Research on Globalization (CRG).
Viejo Condor
Global Research (SIC)
Bashar al-Assad
