Activist Demands US-UK-NATO:NO to the "NO-Fly Zone!" and "NO Proxy Military Arming the Libyan Rebels!"
Currently, the US-UK-NATO war drums against Libya is shifting to high gear. Although they'd suffered the political defeat in UN last week pushing for a resolution giving them ultimate power to bomb Libya (A.K.A. "No-Fly Zon e"). They're working hard to increase the war porn talk to work around UN to do so (just like what happened in Iraq at 2003). Many analysis believes there could be a US-UK-NATO military actions (most likely air bombing), or covert operations to arm Libya rebels to escalate the proxy civil war. We need to demand US-UK-NATO NO to the "NO-Fly Zone!" and "NO Proxy Military Arming the Libyan Rebels!" We don't need more weapons. We don't need more propaganda. We don't need more "military aid". We don't need more training of local militaries to "stand up". We need more training of nonviolent activists. Violence by Libyans alone will not bring peace and justice. Violence breeds violence. There is no war for peace. There is no way to peace. Peace is the way. Lee Siu Hin National Coordinator National Immigrant Solidarity Network _http://www.ImmigrantSolidarity.org_ (http://www.immigrantsolidarity.org/) Action LA Network _http://www.ActionLA.org_ (http://www.actionla.org/) Peace NO War Network _http://www.PeaceNOWar.net_ (http://www.peacenowar.net/) Activist Video Service _http://www.ActivistVideo.org_ (http://www.activistvideo.org/) Libya: I Smell A Rat By William Bowles 03 March, 2011 _williambowles.info_ (http://williambowles.info/?p=30797) _http://www.countercurrents.org/bowles030311.htm_ (http://www.countercurrents.org/bowles030311.htm) "[T]o be an enemy of America can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal." -- Henry Kissinger >From the very beginning of the Libyan uprising/coup, call it what you will, something didn't strike me as 'right', events unfolded in a vacuum as if overnight, chaos took over. As I reported in an earlier piece, all the videos coming out of Libya, were grainy unattributed snatches of events, it was impossible to tell what was really going on, and accompanied by all manner of rumours about what it was alleged Ghadifi's regime was doing. Fertile ground for turning fiction into 'fact' and, as it has transpired, much of the current hysteria in the Western media rests on two, key rumours that surfaced almost concurrently with the uprising itself: 1. The 'African mercenaries' 2. Libyan Airforce bombing civilians The revelation that Russian military satellites reported no Libyan airstrikes[1] as well as the now all but vanished 'African mercenaries'[2] rumour all leads me to suspect that the USUK meddling in the internal affairs of Libya is at the root of the uprising. If not directly implicated then at the least 'assisting' via its various fronts, especially the National Front for the Salvation of Libya, a CIA-NED front organization based in Washington DC created during the Cold War period, and itself the source of rumours concerning what was actually going on during those crucial first few days of the uprising. It's the Empire up to its usual old dirty tricks. The Israeli intelligence website Debka states (25 Feb) that: "Hundreds of US, British and French military advisers have arrived in Cyrenaica, Libya's eastern breakaway province, debkafile's military sources report exclusively. This is the first time America and Europe have intervened militarily in any of the popular upheavals rolling through the Middle East since Tunisia's Jasmine Revolution in early January. The advisers, including intelligence officers, were dropped from warships and missile boats at the coastal towns of Benghazi and Tobruk Thursday Feb. 24, for a threefold mission: 1. To help the revolutionary committees controlling eastern Libyan establish government frameworks for supplying two million inhabitants with basic services and commodities; 2. To organize them into paramilitary units, teach them how to use the weapons they captured from Libyan army facilities, help them restore law and order on the streets and train them to fight Muammar Qaddafi's combat units coming to retake Cyrenaica. 3. The prepare infrastructure for the intake of additional foreign troops. Egyptian units are among those under consideration." _Debka.com_ (http://www.debka.com/article/20708/) [3] Not surprisingly, most of the so-called Left in the West has fallen for it all over again, just as they did over the dismemberment of Yugoslavia. This is not about Ghadafi per se, he is just the latest patsy in the 'Great Game', another convenient dictator to ditch, to be replaced by a more compliant servant of US capital. Opposing Western intervention is not about defending Ghadafi's regime, it's about defending the national integrity of Libya from a Western takeover. It's all about timing With popular insurrections springing up all over the place, more than any of us can keep up with, it was clearly time for a diversion. Enter Libya. Ghadifi's autocracy has plenty of enemies within and without and I suspect that he got fat and lazy about how he ran his satrapy and ripe for the taking. Do you really think the Empire cares who is running the show as long as they do as they are told? The objective for the Empire is firstly to create a diversion from the events unfolding elsewhere in the Middle East / North Africa, which given the scale of the uprisings are impossible to control. What was needed was a pretext to intervene directly and it was handed to them on a plate by Ghadafi. When have Kissinger's words rung more true than with Ghadafi? Second, direct intervention in the Gulf states and elsewhere in North Africa by the Empire is obviously not possible, there's just too many of them, it is after all a regional phenomenon and by its very nature unpredictable, even Iraq has caught the fever. But Libya was ripe for regime change, all it took was some kind of catalyst. And as the situation on the ground evolves, it's likely that the Balkanization of Libya is the immediate objective, with the Western half (where all the oil is) split off from the rest of the country (there are already intimations of this being reported in the Western media). And now the opposition is calling for airstrikes, though not invasion, this would be a step too far at this stage (and it's not clear who the opposition is that the New York Times is talking to, see below). "The council is considering strikes against only the compound and assets like radar stations, according to the people briefed on the discussions, who requested anonymity because no formal decision had been made. /../ "Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday that the Obama administration knew that the Libyan opposition was eager to be seen “as doing this by themselves on behalf of the Libyan people — that there not be outside intervention by any external force.” -- '_Libyan Rebels Said to Debate Seeking U.N. Airstrikes'_ (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/world/africa/02libya.html?emc=na) , New York Times, 2 March, 2011 [my emph. WB] Where have I heard this before? Oh yeah, it was a few weeks back when Egypt blew up in the Empire's face. A 'no-fly zone'? The BBC put it this way: "In what circumstances would a coalition warplane shoot down a Libyan one? "Would the ban apply to all aircraft or just military, fixed-wing or helicopters? What about civilian airliners suspected of bringing in mercenaries from Libya's African neighbours?" -- _'Libya protests: No-fly zone - bluff or reality?'_ (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12615852) , BBC Website, 1 March ,2011 "UK PM David Cameron on Tuesday insisted it was right to be looking at plans for a no-fly zone, adding: "We do not in any way rule out the use of military assets."" -- _'Libyans in battle over oil town',_ (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12618367) BBC Website 2 March, 2011 The issue of establishing a so-called no-fly zone which if enacted is a de facto an invasion though of course calling it an invasion is studiously avoided in the Western media. The established law that the airspace above a country is also sovereign territory seemingly escapes the notice of the BBC. "There is a banner doing the rounds in Libya that reads: "No foreign intervention. Libyan people can manage alone". Undoubtedly Col Gaddafi would make maximum capital out of this "imperialist intervention", portraying it to his population as all part of a "US-Zionist plot" to subjugate his country. Note how the BBC answers for us, pre-empting anyone who objects to an invasion as being a dupe of Ghadafi. "Then what about Libya's air defences? Would they have to be destroyed first? Probably yes, in which case Libyans would almost certainly die from Western military action."(ibid) "Probably yes"? This is newsspeak carried to new heights. After all, the entire point of a 'no-fly zone' is to stop Libyan military aircraft from flying and it would inevitably involve military action before even one Libyan jet or helicopter took to the air. We need only look at the Iraq 'no-fly zone' for proof that it is a belligerent act that in the case of Iraq involved thousands of missions and missiles that pretty much deindustrialized the country as well as killing uncounted thousands. The article ends thus: "My interpretation? [Frank Gardner's] There isn't really a lot of appetite for this no-fly zone but the possible alternative - sitting on our hands while Col Gaddafi sends MiGs and helicopter gunships to kill his own people - would be worse. "Hence the plan being readied to be put into the prime minister's drawer in case it is needed, even if they hope it doesn't come to that." Note Gardner's sly reference to the possibility that Gaddafi will use his Migs and helicopters, whilst we, the West, stand by? Governments everywhere are killing their own citizens, is the BBC advocating a military response? How quickly the idea of violence becomes the dominant voice in the MSM even as it calls for restraint and 'humanity'. How can it be that here we have a regime supported and armed by the West led by a man who hobnobbed with scum like Blair and Berlusconi, overnight turned into Satan incarnate by an overwhelming media blitz that now wraps the planet in its deadly embrace? It's Mubarak all over again! It's Saddam Hussein all over again! It's Milosovic all over again! It's Noriega all over again... It's Diem all over again... Hopefully those struggling on the ground in Libya will _reject _ (http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumi val=6342) any kind of Western intervention but the situation is in flux, state power as they say, is contested terrain in Libya. It's anybody's guess as to who will come out on top. But obviously any kind of intervention from the outside can only complicate matters. "Rebels in Benghazi are also rejecting calls from US senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman to send the liberated territory weapons to fight Gaddafi's forces. They insist they defeated the security forces of Muammar al-Gaddafi in Benghazi without the use of weapons and without the support of a foreign government." -- _Jihan Hafiz_ (http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=6342) in Benghazi Clearly Ghadafi has to go, there is no way the Empire will allow him to survive, it's much too late for that. One can only hope that the sentiment uttered by the rebel in Benghazi will bear fruit and a united, anti-imperialist government emerge from the chaos caused in the first place by the Empire itself. Notes 1. See _“Airstrikes in Libya did not take place” _ (http://rt.com/news/airstrikes-libya-russian-military/) – Russian military — RT 2. See for example, _'Experts Disagree on African Mercenaries in Libya'_ (http://www.voanews.com/english/news/africa/Experts-Disagree-on-African-Merce naries-in-Libya-117156253.html) 3. (This Israeli report is unverified) See '_The Tide of Media Disinformation: Who is Behind the Military Insurrection in Libya?'_ (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=REP20110302&articleId=23456) By Marjaleena Repo, 2 March 2011, Global Research _US, Britain Step Up Plans For Military Intervention In Libya_ (http://www.countercurrents.org/talbot090311.htm) By Ann Talbot The United States and Britain took another step towards direct military intervention against Libya Tuesday, as President Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron discussed coordination of an international campaign to bring down long-time Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi _Libya: WikiLeaks Cables Warn Of Extremist Beliefs_ (http://www.countercurrents.org/blake090311.htm) By Heidi Blake Leaked diplomatic cables obtained by the WikiLeaks website and passed to The Daily Telegraph disclose fears that eastern Libya is being overrun by extremists intent on overthrowing Colonel Gaddafi's regime _Libya: Is This Kosovo All Over Again? _ (http://www.countercurrents.org/johnstone090311.htm) By Diana Johnstone Less than a dozen years after NATO bombed Yugoslavia into pieces, detaching the province of Kosovo from Serbia, there are signs that the military alliance is gearing up for another victorious little “humanitarian war”, this time against Libya. The differences are, of course, enormous. But let’s look at some of the disturbing similarities _Libya And The Return Of Humanitarian Imperialism _ (http://www.countercurrents.org/bricmont090311.htm) By Jean Bricmont Twelve years later, it is Kosovo all over again. Hundred of thousands of Iraqis dead, NATO stranded in an impossible position in Afghanistan, and they have learned nothing! _What Will You Do, If Libya Repeats Itself In USA? _ (http://www.countercurrents.org/scott090311.htm) By Frank Scott Imagine This: Armed Tea Party militias attack government facilities in several American cities, threaten to deport the president and abolish congress, and claim a new day for democracy. What would be the reaction from our corporate government and media? Great praise for the second amendment and the right of the people to bear arms and overthrow the government? War porn is back in Libya "There's all that oil" 03/02/11 Asia Times (Hong Kong) By Pepe Escobar Forget "democracy"; Libya, unlike Egypt and Tunisia, is an oil power. Many a plush office of United States and European elites will be salivating at the prospect of taking advantage of a small window of opportunity afforded by the anti-Muammar Gaddafi revolution to establish - or expand - a beachhead. There's all that oil, of course. There's also the allure, close by, of the US$10 billion, 4,128 kilometer long Trans-Saharan gas pipeline from Nigeria to Algeria, expected to be online in 2015. Thus the world, once again, is reintroduced to war porn, history as farce, a bad rerun of "shock and awe". Everyone - the United Nations, the US, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) - is up in arms about a no-fly zone. Special forces are on the move, as are US warships. Breathless US senators compare Libya with Yugoslavia. Tony "The Return of the Living Dead" Blair is back in missionary zeal form, its mirror image played by British Prime Minister David Cameron, duly mocked by Gaddafi's son, the "modernizer" Saif al-Islam. There's fear of "chemical weapons". Welcome back to humanitarian imperialism - on crack. And like a character straight out of Scary Movie, even war-on-Iraq-architect Paul Wolfowitz wants a NATO-enforced no-fly zone, as the Foreign Policy Initiative - the son of the Project for the New American Century - publishes an open letter to US President Barack Obama demanding military boots to turn Libya into a protectorate ruled by NATO in the name of the "international community". The mere fact that all these people are supporting the Libya protesters makes it all stink to - over the rainbow - high heavens. Sending His Awesomeness Charlie Sheen to whack Gaddafi would seem more believable. It was up to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to introduce a note of sanity, describing the notion of a no-fly zone over Libya as "superfluous". This means in practice a Russian veto at the UN Security Council. Earlier, China had already changed the conversation. In their Sheen-style hysteria - with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton desperately offering "any kind of assistance" - Western politicians did not bother to consult with the people who are risking their lives to overthrow Gaddafi. At a press conference in Benghazi, the spokesman for the brand new Libyan National Transitional Council, human-rights lawyer Abdel-Hafidh Ghoga, was blunt, "We are against any foreign intervention or military intervention in our internal affairs ... This revolution will be completed by our people." The people in question, by the way, are protecting Libya's oil industry, and even loading supertankers destined to Europe and China. The people in question do not have much to do with opportunists such as former Gaddafi-appointed justice minister Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, who wants a provisional government to prepare for elections in three months. Moreover, the people in question, as al-Jazeera has reported, have been saying they don't want foreign intervention for a week now. The Benghazi council prefers to describe itself as the "political face for the revolution", organizing civic affairs, and not established as an interim government. Meanwhile, a military committee of officer defectors is trying to set up a skeleton army to be sent to Tripoli; through tribal contacts, they seem to have already infiltrated small cells into the vicinity of Tripoli. Whether this self-appointed revolutionary leadership - splinter elements of the established elite, the tribes and the army - will be the face of a new regime, or whether they will be overtaken by younger, more radical activists, remains to be seen. Shower me with hypocrisy None of this anyway has placated the hysterical Western narrative, according to which there are only two options for Libya; to become a failed state or the next al-Qaeda haven. How ironic. Up to 2008, Libya was dismissed by Washington as a rogue state and an unofficial member of the "axis of evil" that originally included Iraq, Iran and North Korea. As former NATO supreme commander Wesley Clark confirmed years ago, Libya was on the Pentagon/neo-conservative official list to be taken out after Iraq, along with Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria and the holy grail, Iran. But as soon as wily Gaddafi became an official partner in the "war on terror", Libya was instantly upgraded by the George W Bush administration to civilized status. As for the UN Security Council unanimously deciding to refer the Gaddafi regime to the International Criminal Court (ICC), it's useful to remember that the ICC was created in mid-1998 by 148 countries meeting in Rome. The final vote was 120 to seven. The seven that voted against the ICC were China, Iraq, Israel, Qatar and Yemen, plus Libya and ... the United States. Incidentally, Israel killed more Palestinian civilians in two weeks around new year 2008 than Gaddafi these past two weeks. This tsunami of hypocrisy inevitably raises the question; what does the West know about the Arab world anyway? Recently the executive board of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) praised a certain northern African country for its "ambitious reform agenda" and its "strong macroeconomic performance and the progress on enhancing the role of the private sector". The country was Libya. The IMF had only forgotten to talk to the main actors: the Libyan people. And what to make of Anthony Giddens - the guru behind Blair's "Third Way" - who in March 2007 penned an article to The Guardian saying "Libya is not especially repressive" and "Gaddafi seems genuinely popular"? Giddens bet that Libya "in two or three decades' time would be a Norway of North Africa: prosperous, egalitarian and forward-looking". Tripoli may well be on its way to Oslo - but without the Gaddafi clan. The US, Britain and France are so awkwardly maneuvering for best post-Gaddafi positioning it's almost comical to watch. Beijing, even against its will, waited until extra time to condemn Gaddafi at the UN, but made sure it was following the lead of African and Asian countries (smart move, as in "we listen to the voices of the South"). Beijing is extremely worried that its complex economic relationship with oil source Libya does not unravel (amid all the hoopla about fleeing expats, China quietly evacuated no less than 30,000 Chinese workers in the oil and construction business). Once again; it's the oil, stupid. A crucial strategic factor for Washington is that post-Gaddafi Libya may represent a bonanza for US Big Oil - which for the moment has been kept away from Libya. Under this perspective, Libya may be considered as yet one more battleground between the US and China. But while China goes for energy and business deals in Africa, the US bets on its forces in AFRICOM as well as NATO advancing "military cooperation" with the African Union. The anti-Gaddafi movement must remain on maximum alert. It's fair to argue the absolute majority of Libyans are using all their resourcefulness and are wiling to undergo any sacrifice to build a united, transparent and democratic country. And they will do it on their own. They may accept humanitarian help. As for war porn, throw it in the dustbin of history. Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His new book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009). He may be reached at [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) . DON’T ‘NO-FLY’ LIBYA _http://www.ips-dc.org/articles/dont_no-fly_libya_ (http://www.ips-dc.org/articles/dont_no-fly_libya) _http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM5J0jaQkXw_ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM5J0jaQkXw) RT on NFZ march 3 By Phyllis Bennis 4 March 2011 Today in Libya, civilians are being killed by a besieged and isolated dictator. Libyan warplanes have been used to attack civilians, although the vast majority of the violence has come from ground attacks. The Libyan opposition’s provisional national council, meeting in Benghazi, is debating whether they should request military support from the international community, maybe the UN or NATO, starting with a no-fly zone. The Arab League announced that it was also considering establishing a no-fly zone, perhaps with the African Union. It is unclear what casualties the airstrikes may have caused. The anti-regime forces have some access to anti-aircraft weapons, and Qaddafi has already lost planes and pilots alike to the opposition – but it is far from clear where the military balance lies. Powerful U.S. voices – including neo-conservative warmongers and liberal interventionists in and out of the administration, as well as important anti-war forces in and out of Congress – are calling on the Obama administration to establish a no-fly zone in Libya to protect civilians. A Libyan activist writes in _The Guardian_ (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/01/libya-revolution-no-fly-zone) , “we welcome a no-fly zone, but the blood of Libya's dead will be wasted if the west curses our uprising with failed intervention.” He says that his hopes for a happy ending are “marred by a fear shared by all Libyans; that of a possible western military intervention to end the crisis.” He seems to believe that a U.S. or NATO no-fly zone would mean something other than a Western military intervention. Ironically it was Secretary of Defense Robert Gates who warned that establishing a no-fly zone “_begins with an attack on Libya_ (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/world/africa/03military.html?partner=rss&emc=rss) .” It would be an act of war. And the Middle East doesn’t need another U.S. war. What would a no-fly zone in Libya mean? A bit of history may provide some perspective. BOMBING TRIPOLI The year was 1986. People had been killed, this time in a terrorist attack in Europe. The Libyan government, led by Muammar Qaddafi, was deemed responsible. The U.S. _announced air strikes_ (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/15/newsid_3975000/3975455.stm) directed at “key military sites” in Tripoli and Benghazi. Exactly the kind of targeted air strikes that would precede a no-fly zone. But according to the BBC, the missiles hit a densely populated Tripoli suburb, Bin Ashur. At least 100 people were killed, including Qaddafi’s three-year-old daughter. Qaddafi himself was fine. Libyans remember. Fast-forward half a decade. The 1991 Gulf War in Iraq was over. A besieged and defeated Arab dictator was posturing, threatening force, and the victorious U.S. decided to intervene again, officially for humanitarian reasons. The U.S. and Britain established unilateral “no-fly zones” in northern and southern Iraq. (U.S. and British officials consistently lied, claiming they were enforcing “United Nations no-fly zones,” but in fact no UN resolution ever even mentioned one.) During the twelve years of the no-fly zone, _hundreds were killed_ (http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=134723&archive=22,15,2002) by U.S. and British bombs. Iraqis remember. So do Libyans. Assume the “attack on Libya” preceding a no-fly zone succeeds in its very specific purpose: to eliminate the anti-aircraft weapons that could threaten U.S. planes enforcing the zone. But does that mean it also eliminates all anti-aircraft weapons in the hands of the opposition, the defectors from Qaddafi’s air force? What would the consequences be of that? And then there are the “what if” factors. What if they made a mistake? The 1986 U.S. airstrikes in Libya were supposed to be aimed at military targets – yet more than 100 people, many of them civilians, were killed; why do we assume it will be any different this time? What if a U.S. warplane was shot down and pilots or bombers were captured by Qaddafi’s military? Wouldn’ t U.S. Special Forces immediately be deployed to rescue them? Then what? And that’s just the military part. That’s just the beginning. CONSEQUENCES No-fly zones, like any other act of war, have consequences. In Libya, though it is impossible to precisely gauge public opinion, a significant majority of people appears opposed to the regime and prepared to mobilize and fight to bring it down. That is not surprising. While the Libyan revolt is playing out in vastly different ways, and with far greater bloodshed, it is part and parcel of the democratic revolutionary process rising across the Arab world and beyond. And just as in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Bahrain, and elsewhere, there is no evidence that the Libyan population supports foreign military involvement. To the contrary, although at least part of the anti-Qaddafi leadership is indeed calling for some kind of military intervention, there appears to be widespread public opposition to such a call. Certainly there is fear that such foreign involvement will give credibility to Qaddafi’s currently false claims that foreigners are responsible for the uprising. But beyond that, there is a powerful appeal in the recognition that the democracy movements sweeping the Middle East and North Africa are indigenous, authentic, independent mobilizations against decades-long U.S.- and Western-backed dictatorship and oppression. There have been broadly popular calls for international assistance to the anti-Qaddafi forces, including support for a UN-imposed assets freeze and referral to the International Criminal Court for top regime officials. And despite the breathtaking hypocrisy of the U.S., which embraces the ICC as a tool against Washington’s current opponents but rejects it for war criminals among its Israeli and other allies and refuses its jurisdiction for itself, the use of the Court for this purpose is very appropriate. But there is no popular call for military intervention. Human rights lawyer and opposition spokesman Abdel-Hafidh Ghoga was crystal clear: _“We are against any foreign intervention_ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/27/AR2011022702406.html) ... This revolution will be completed by our people.” And Libyan General Ahmad Gatroni, who defected to lead the opposition forces, _urged the U.S._ (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/02/intervention-libya-poison-arab-revolution) to “take care of its own people, we can look after ourselves.” Indeed, if the U.S. is so worried about the bombing raids against civilians, perhaps the Obama administration should take another look at Afghanistan, where nine Afghan children, ages seven to fourteen, were killed by U.S. attack helicopters in Kunar province on March 1st. If the Congress is so eager to follow the wishes of Libya’s opposition, perhaps General Gatroni’s call for the U.S. to “take care of its own people” could mean challenging another stark reality: the people of Wisconsin, facing a _$1.8 billion budget deficit_ (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=711) , will pay _$1.7 billion_ (http://costofwar.com/en/tradeoffs/state/WI/program/13/tradeoff/0) in taxes this year just for their share of an already-existing war, the one in Afghanistan._[es1]_ (https://mail.ips-dc.org/owa/?ae=Item&a=New&t=IPM.Note#_msocom_1) GLOBAL OPPOSITION Internationally, there is widespread public and governmental opposition in influential countries, _such as India_ (http://www.hindu.com/2011/03/04/stories/2011030461120100.htm) , to establishing a no-fly zone. In the United Nations, many governments are reluctant to order an act of war that would significantly escalate the military conflict underway in Libya. The _Security Council resolution_ (http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N11/245/58/PDF/N1124558.pdf?OpenElement) that passed unanimously on February 27 condemned the violence and imposed a set of targeted sanctions on the Qaddafi regime, but did not reference Article 42 of the _UN Charter_ (http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml) , the prerequisite for endorsing the use of force. Instead, the Council relied on Article 41, which authorizes only “measures not involving the use of armed force.” Passage, let alone unanimity, would have been impossible otherwise. Russia’s ambassador specifically _opposed what he called “counterproductive interventions,”_ (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10187.doc.htm) and other key Council members, including veto-wielding China as well as rising powers India, South Africa, and Brazil, have all expressed various levels of caution and outright opposition to further militarizing the situation in Libya. So far, the Obama administration and the Pentagon appear to be vacillating on support for a no-fly zone. An anonymous administration official told the New York Times “there’s a great temptation to stand up and say, ‘We’ll help you rid the country of a dictator’… But the president has been clear that what’s sweeping across the Middle East is organic to the region, and _as soon as we become a military player, we’re at risk of falling into the old trap_ (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/world/africa/03military.html?partner=rss&emc=rss) that Americans are stage-managing events for their own benefit.” In fact that “old trap,” seizing control of international events for Washington’s own benefit, remains central to U.S. foreign policy. It’s becoming harder these days, as U.S. influence wanes. But key U.S. political forces are upping the pressure on Obama to send the troops – at least the Air Force. Those rooting for war include right-wing Republican warmongers eager to attack Obama as war-averse (despite all evidence to the contrary), as well, unfortunately, as some of the strongest anti-war voices in Congress (including Jim McDermott, Mike Honda, Keith Ellison, and others), who presumably believe that the humanitarian necessity of a no-fly zone still outweighs the dangers. It doesn’t. Humanitarian crises simply do not shape U.S. policy. If they did, we might have heard a bit more last week when the Baghdad government -- armed, financed, trained, and supported by the United States -- killed 29 Iraqi civilians demonstrating against corruption. We might have seen humanitarian involvement in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where millions of civilians have been killed in Africa’s longest and perhaps most brutal war. And we might have seen, if not direct U.S. intervention, at least an end to the U.S. enabling of the Israeli assault on Gaza that killed more than 900 civilians, _313 of them children_ (http://pchrgaza.org/files/PressR/English/2008/2008/07-2009.html) . Rather, “humanitarian” concerns become a tool of powerful circles to build popular support for what would otherwise bring massive public outrage – “ really, while the costs of existing wars have already brought the U.S. economy to its knees, you want to launch another U.S. war in the Middle East?? ” WHOSE HUMANITARIANISM? It’s not that there are no real humanitarian concerns; Libyan civilians are paying a huge price in challenging their dictator. But powerful U.S. interests are at stake, and few of them have anything to do with protecting Libyan civilians. Certainly oil is key; not so much about access to Libyan oil (the international oil market is pretty fungible), but about which oil companies will gain privileged positions? Will it be BP and Chevron who win the lucrative contracts to develop Libya’s enormous oil fields, or will Chinese and Russian oil companies take their place? What pipelines will a new government in Libya choose, and which countries and corporations will benefit? And it’s not only about oil. The Libyan uprising is one of many potentially revolutionary transformations across the Arab world and in parts of Africa, where long-standing U.S.-backed dictatorships are collapsing – what kind of credibility can the U.S. expect in post-Qaddafi Libya? Washington may be betting that it can win credibility with the opposition by jumping out in front with an aggressive anti-Qaddafi “military assistance” campaign, perhaps starting with a no-fly zone. But in fact Washington risks antagonizing those opposition supporters, apparently the vast majority, determined to protect the independence of their democratic revolution. The future of Libya and much of the success of the democratic revolutions now underway across the region, stand in the balance. If the Obama administration, the Pentagon, war profiteers and the rest of the U.S. policymaking establishment continue to define U.S. “national interests” as continuing U.S. domination of oil-rich and strategically-located countries and regions, Washington faces a likely future of isolation, antagonism, rising terrorism and hatred. The democratic revolutionary processes sweeping North Africa and the Middle East have already transformed that long-stalemated region. The peoples of the region are looking for less, not greater militarization of their countries. It is time for U.S. policy to recognize that reality. Saying no to a no-fly zone in Libya will be the best thing the Obama administration can do to begin the process of crafting a new, demilitarized 21st century policy for the U.S. in the newly democratizing Middle East. ____________________ Phyllis Bennis is a Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies. Her books include Calling the Shots: How Washington Dominates Today’s UN. ============================================================================ == Peace NO War Network (http://www.peacenowar.net/) _http://www.PeaceNOWar.net_ (http://www.peacenowar.net/) War is not the answer, for only love can conquer hate Not in our Name! And another world is possible! Information for antiwar movements, news across the World, please visit:_ http://www.PeaceNoWar.net_ (http://www.peacenowar.net/) e-mail: [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) Tel: (213)403-0131 Please Join PeaceNoWar Listserv, send e-mail to: [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) Please Donate to Peace No War Network! Send check pay to: ActionLA/AFGJ ActionLA P.O. Box 751 South Pasadena, CA 91031-0751 (All donations are tax deductible) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
