Debkafile reported on 17 January that an imminent joint Israeli-US exercise had been cancelled by Israel’s prime minister, and not by the US as widely supposed. Convinced that Iran has made the decision to become a nuclear power Mr Netanyahu is preparing for possible unilateral attacks on Iranian nuclear sites.British press reports say agents from the CIA and MI6 are operating within Syria while British and French Special Forces are training members of the Free Syrian Army in Turkey. Pravda has claimed that NATO snipers who fought in Libya have been sent to Syria.
As regional war threatens drastic and unforeseen
consequences in the Middle East some commentators claim that
humanitarian benefits justify Western intervention in repressive states.
This claim is worth considering in the context of the events that have
befallen Libya.
No one should be under any illusions about the
intentions of Western governments in Libya following their activities
throughout the 42 years of Muammar Qadafi’s rule. During this time there
were 39 coup attempts inspired by US, British and French agencies, most
of which were centred on Benghazi and the province of Cyrenaica. Many
involved an attempt at assassination, as did the US fighter-bomber
attack on Tripoli in 1986 in which eight of the 18 aircraft flying from
Britain specifically targeted Col Qadafi’s private residence.
Qadafi’s overthrow began as an uprising in Benghazi
which followed a Facebook call, from London on 17 February 2011, to
commemorate the 2005 massacre at Abu Salim prison. In response to the
ensuing fighting the UN Security Council unanimously approved resolution
1970 on 26 February. Calling for an end to all violence, it required
all member states to apply an arms embargo which also prohibited the
provision of technical assistance, training, finance and all other
assistance related to military activities. It soon became clear that
British forces were in breach of the resolution when six members of the
SAS were taken prisoner by rebels in Benghazi on 4 March. What the troop
was trying to achieve, and what went wrong with the operation has never
been revealed.
Following reports of civilian massacres by Libyan
aircraft the Security Council responded by approving resolution 1973 on
17 March 2011, although this time one-third of the fifteen members
abstained. (The claims concerning civilian massacres were later refuted
by Amnesty International, along with allegations that the Libyan regime
had been employing foreign mercenaries.) This called for an immediate
cease-fire and for all sides to seek a solution to the crisis while
requiring them to protect civilians. Responding to a call from the Arab
League it authorised the enforcement of a no-fly zone.
A US-drafted amendment allowed for “all necessary
measures [to protect Libyan civilians] under threat of attack”. The
American Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, promptly claimed that this
allowed for arming the rebels under the terms of the resolution. Jose
Cabral, the chair of the Sanctions Committee, disagreed and declared
that “the resolution [1973] imposes a full embargo on arms.” The US and
NATO however had no interest in legal formalities and large quantities
of arms were subsequently supplied to the rebels from Qatar via the
Egyptian border. France also in shipped some supplies direct, while NATO
Special Forces supplied training and expertise.
On the following day and in response to resolution
1973, the Libyan Foreign Minister announced an immediate ceasefire and a
stoppage of all military operations against rebel forces. The next day,
19 March, French aircraft carried out an airstrike which was followed
by the launch of 110 Tomahawk missiles by US and British warships
against air defences in Tripoli and Misrata. Thus only two days after
its approval, the Security Council resolution was rendered a sham by
NATO forces which placed civilian lives unnecessarily at risk when they
ignored the offer of an immediate cease-fire and refused to seek a
solution to the crisis. All subsequent calls for a ceasefire by the
Libyan government were summarily dismissed by either the rebels or NATO.
By 29 March the Russian Foreign Minister was moved to comment “We
consider that intervention by the coalition in what is essentially an
internal civil war is not sanctioned by the UN Security Council
resolution."
Apart from coverage of the murder of Muammar Qadafi
and his contemptuous secret burial there has been little mainstream
reportage of the results arising from this international banditry. Even
casualty figures are vague. (NATO does not do casualty figures: they
have still to produce accurate figures for the number of civilians
killed during the bombing of Kosovo in 1999. Sorting out the carnage is
always someone else’s responsibility.) The lowest estimate of casualties
came from the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) which claimed in
September that "between 50-100 civilians had perished from air strikes
in the six months of the campaign". Considering even the National
Transitional Council has estimated 30,000 dead and 50,000 injured,
RUSI’s claim is an insult to intelligence. One of the highest estimates
has come from Thomas Mountain, who used the NATO figure of 9,658 strike
sorties flown to estimate that 30,000 tons of explosives were used, and
by allowing two deaths per ton arrived at a death toll of 60,000.
Failing any details from the perpetrators themselves
some of the vocal supporters for this war might have provided details on
their behalf. Brian Whitaker of the Guardian has written extensively on
the subject, and like a barrack room lawyer picked over the Security
Council resolutions to claim that NATO forces on the ground were legal.
(Jose Cabral’s statement was not amongst the information he considered.)
However Mr Whitaker’s personal website al-Bab, stopped writing about
the Libyan war in August, and has therefore not covered the devastation
left in the wake of the bombardment. The veteran peace campaigner Uri
Avnery also supported the war (and proposed a similar intervention in
Syria) suggesting that opponents of the action were driven by a hatred
of the US and NATO rather than any concern for the people of Libya. He
added that he was “ready to support even the devil, if that is necessary
to put an end to this kind of atrocities”. For the people of Sirte this
might sound bitterly ironic, particularly since Mr Avnery has not
returned to the subject to write about their once prosperous city that
now resembles war-torn Stalingrad or Fallujah. Uri Avnery wondered
whether opponents of the NATO operation were really concerned for the
well-being of the Libyan people. Bassam Haddad, writing on the Jadaliyya
website, had similar concerns about criticism of the Syrian regime,
while expressing his desire to see an end to the abuse of human rights
in Syria. But Prof Haddad is under no illusion about the duplicity and
self-interest driving foreign interference, and appears to draw an
opposing conclusion:
“... the actors that are amassed to benefit from the
fall of the Syrian regime are, in the final analysis, no less
problematic than the Syrian regime itself. In sum, these actors are
certainly more violent, discriminatory, and anti-democratic in terms of
their collective and/or individual long-term vision for the region.”
But if one did need to have an object to hate, then
the calculating planners of the Libyan rape, who appear indifferent to
all the misery they have caused, would make as good an object as any.
Prior to the bombing, Libya had the best health care and the best
education in Africa, free of charge. Essential food staples were heavily
subsidised, while fuel was plentiful and cheap. Having bombed to
kingdom come schools, hospitals, electricity and water supplies, oil
installations, men, women, children, black Africans and Arabs, the
planes and warships have departed. Reports of the use of depleted
uranium and cluster bombs suggest that they will have left some areas
dangerously polluted as well as poverty stricken. An occupation army is
now preparing to arrive: according to former US Congresswoman Cynthia
McKinney, 12,000 US troops in Malta are about to move into Libya, while
trigger-happy NATO troops already occupy the petroleum platforms and
ports.
There have been victory speeches from Nicholas
Sarkozy (who received Col Gaddafi as a guest of honour in France only
two years ago), David Cameron (who visited Egypt peddling British arms
immediately after the fall of Hosni Mubarak) and Barak Obama. (What
greater irony could befall those who were conquered, injured or even
killed, at the behest of a peace prize laureate? What greater folly
could the Nobel Prize committee have concocted?)
And still the misery continues. The entire 31,000
population of Tawergha are said to have fled their homes during the war
and it is not clear how many have returned. IRIN has reported that the
delivery of emergency humanitarian aid has been hindered by a lack of
funding, despite the fact that NATO countries control over $100billion
worth of frozen assets belonging to the people of Libya. In mid-December
International Crisis Group reported that more than 125,000 Libyans now
carry arms, while estimates on the number of militias range from between
100 to 300. Rivalry exists among the different bands which issue their
own identity cards, apply their own investigation techniques and issue
arrest warrants (and reportedly in Misrata continue to kill black
Libyans). Feuding is commonplace. Meanwhile senior officials who
defected from the former regime (possibly after payoffs from NATO)
expect to retain positions in the new leadership.
It must be acknowledged that Qadafi the tyrant is
dead. In a perfect world he most certainly would have faced trial in the
International Criminal Court, following even worse criminals such as
George W Bush and Tony Blair. In this context it should not be forgotten
that the crimes of Barak Obama, which include greatly expanding the
drone attacks on civilian areas in Pakistan, might have earned the death
penalty at Nuremburg. In our imperfect world Col Qadafi brought
stability and prosperity to Libya along with considerable benefits to
other parts of Africa. No less an eminence than Nelson Mandela paid
homage to this. Above all, Qadafi’s nefarious crimes do not justify the
savage assault that has befallen his people.
With the re-colonisation of Libya completed, NATO and
its allies are looking for the next conquest. In this they are being
encouraged once again by some sincere peace activists. These people
would be well advised to do the arithmetic. In eight months between 30
and 60 thousand Libyans are believed to have been killed. By contrast in
eleven months the estimated death toll in Syria is between five and
seven thousand. In addition Syrian buildings and infrastructure appear
to remain largely intact and there is no danger from the remains of
depleted uranium or cluster bombs.
At the present time amidst the chaos and the mayhem
it is still Syrian citizens who control Syrian assets. This is not the
case in Libya, where NATO troops control the nation’s desirable assets,
and the imminent arrival of US occupation troops, according to evidence
from Iraq and Afghanistan, is to be feared rather than welcomed.
The jokers in the pack this time are Russia and China
who, duped and angered by NATO’s shameful misuse of resolution 1973 and
excluded from future trading deals in Libya, are more minded to apply a
proactive stance on behalf of Syria and Iran. This is likely to mean
support for the existing repressive regimes, such as the shipload of
munitions that Russia recently sent to Syria. The problem is that
outside interference reduces the opportunities for internal compromises
that could herald new freedoms.
During the twentieth century both Syria and Libya
experienced the brutal repression and racism of European colonialism,
while Iran was invaded by British Empire forces a few years before
Anglo-American meddling imposed a brutal puppet regime. For Libya a
parallel experience has now returned. For Syria and Iran the same fate
awaits the unwary and the unprepared. The dark shadow of colonial
occupation has made an unexpected and unwelcome return.
Richard Lightbown is a
researcher and writer who has volunteered with Viva Palestina,
International Solidarity Movement, Golan for Development,and as a
forester with Voluntary Service Overseas.
No comments:
Post a Comment