WESTERN INTRIGUE IN THE MIDDLE EAST
Posted on March 14th, 2011
Mahinda Weerasinghe
Col. Muammar el-QaddafiƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s days may be numbered, but that he simply did not lie down and play dead exasperated the EU powers.
Since Qaddafi seized power in 1969 he controlled Libya with an iron fist. The North African nation has been under his firm and erratic, control since he took control of the nation has made him lots of enemies. The col. simply irritated the west by his stubbornness to ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”play second fiddleƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ to them. Suddenly now his enemies have got a unique chance to get even. Indeed His detractors have banded together and are trying their utmost to bring him down.
Col. Muammar el-QaddafiƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s Islamic credentials are impeccable. He may be an Islamists but he is also rabidly anti Al-Qaida. His people have more freedom than his nemesis in Saudi Arabia. In fact his Islamic credentials may be as implacable as IranƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. These two men have been thorns in the western leaders buttocks since each of their public careers took off.
Then on February 2011, unrest blew through much of the Arab nations and ignited several Libyan cities. Though it began with a relatively small core of antigovernment opponents in Benghazi, its spread on the capital of Tripoli was swift and spontaneous. Predictably Colonel Qaddafi lashed out with a level of violence unseen elsewhere in the region.
Then, from out of the blue an opposition has been cobbled together, giving a semblance of a transitional government, which fielded a ragtag rebel army and portrayed itself to the West and Libyans as an alternative to Colonel Qaddafi’s four decades of freakish rule.
Personally I am not supporter of ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Qaddafi or Ahmadinejad or their Islamic message, but something tells me that whatƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s unfolding in Libya at this point of history is all ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”smoke and mirrorsƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢.
By March 10 Rebel fighters fled the strategic refinery town of Ras Lanuf under a ferocious rocket attacks and airstrikes by forces loyal to the Libyan leader. Bold plans of a westward drive to Tripoli by the undermanned and ill-equipped rebel army were dashed by the superior Qaddafi forces, which were keen to reclaim several of its eastern oil cities that slipped from the governmentƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s control in the first days of the uprising. Morale among the fighters seemed to be currently weakening.
Then who should step in to the fray but the kind hearted French president, Nicolas Sarkozy. Without much ado he recognized the opposition Libyan National Council as the representative of Libya. ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ That was nice of him. Obviously while Libya was in turmoil we also find Prime Minster David Cameron giving his two pence worth of rhetoric. That kind of support boosted the morale of the rebels and galvanised them to keep fighting harder for their piece of hard property.
Then suddenly without any ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”how do you doƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ Sarkozy grabbed the limelight ahead of all its allies, by declaring that France recognized LibyaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s rebel leadership in the eastern city of Benghazi as representing Libya and would soon exchange ambassadors.
Then on March 11, 2011 European Leaders met and announced that they didnƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t Rule out a Military Role in Libya. But at the same time European Union members disregarded Britain and FranceƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”no-flight zoneƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ under taking, but agreed to examine ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-all necessary options.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ All this was a charade on the British and FranceƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s side as far as I can see.
Then we get the biggest shock of all, to the unfolding drama, for we get to hear that the ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”The Arab LeagueƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ had requested the United Nations Security Council on Saturday to impose a no-flight zone over Libya in hopes of halting Col. Muammar el-QaddafiƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s attacks on his own people, as his forces pushed rebels east in the three-week-old civil war.
And pray who is the main sponsor to this concerned move by the Arab League; it was no other than Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal of Saudi Arabia.
Indeed while the Saudis pushing to take out Qaddafi, back home Saudi police opened fire on pro-democracy protesters, and on ThursdayƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬‚on the eve of a massive planned rallyƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬‚squashed a rebellion thus nipping in the bud a home grown rebellion in Saudi Arabia.
In fact human rights watch informs that Since September 11, 2001, thousands have been arrested and subjected to a secretive and abusive duress. Many people have been detained for months or years without any ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ legally challenge totheir detention, with reports of torture and ill-treatment. Peaceful critics of the government have been detained. But then Saudi Arabia follows the instructions from the west unlike big headed Col. of Libya.
By now only one nail was missing to get legitimacy for Col. Muammar el-QaddafiƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s coffin that is the nod of the African Union. That nail would be difficult to get for obvious reasons.
While all this is taking place we hear the squeaky voice of that spineless secretary General Ban Ki Moon offering his two cents worth of advice. Now donƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t misunderstand me, the question of BanƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”spinelessnessƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ was not something that I coined but by Dep. Ambassador of Norway to UN Mona Juul.
Not that there were no opposition for this call for the dismantling of Libya,
There was one lone voice from the wildness. That was by SyriaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s ambassador, Youssef Ahmed. He said Arab states should oppose any step that ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-violates the sovereignty, independence and unity of Libyan territory.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚
So what is behind this smoke and mirrors. I feel the earlier colonial powers have hatched up a refined plan for this Middle East nation.
They probably threatened Saudi Royalty that if they wished to be let off from the ill winds that are blowing they had to sacrifice Libya.
Indeed the initial step is to destabilise Libya which in turn trigger the two main rivals to clash.
I am speaking of west ploy of using Saudi Arabia to get at Iran. ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚
Which would say if everything goes well, it should end up pitting Arabs against Iranians with an extended war in the Middle East? In deed that end plan will make the west rich again and masters of the world.
Which is in keeping with the good old neo colonial savvy of divide and rule? As long as there suckers, they will be sucked into this kind of simple game plans. In fact people deserve the leaders they get.
Mahinda Weerasinghe
12 March 2011
March 14th, 2011 at 1:53 pm
Leaving Libya to Fight it Out is Brutal but Smart-Andrew Sullivan, The Sunday Times 13/3/11
Senior figures are urging military action. But this would risk America’s
real interests and may not have the desired result regardless
Only a few have actually named it the Iraq syndrome, after the Vietnam
syndrome that defined an anti-interventionist US foreign policy in the
wake of that war. But it exists and, to my mind, seems less of a
syndrome than a simple statement of sanity.
As Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, said the other day, anyone
who wants to send another military force into a Muslim country that has
no working institutions or polity and is in the middle of a brutal
internal conflict needs to have his head examined.
In the case of Libya, the American public largely agrees. The polling
outfit Rasmussen, which tends to focus on white, older Americans, found
63% favouring no intervention, down slightly from 67% last month.
Washington operates by its own rules. The debate here has been real and
oddly reminiscent of the Iraq discussion.
Neoconservatives and their allies want intervention in Libya. Two weeks
ago Paul Wolfowitz, George W Bush’s influential deputy secretary of
defence, called for the urgent imposition of a no-fly zone, recognition
of the provisional government in the east and arming of insurgents. He
made no reference to his role in the Iraq war and his assurances back
then that the war would be swift, decisive and not too expensive.
Nobody ever seems to take responsibility for what they have said and
done in the past; they just pontificate That’s the strange thing about
Washington. Nobody ever seems to take responsibility for what they have
said and done in the past; they just pontificate on as if they remain
the unsullied heroes of Mesopotamia.
You might think another strong voice for the Iraq war, Bill Kristol, the
neocon editor of The Weekly Standard, might be cautious about wading
into these waters.
But no, we had an Olympic dive. “Is it too much to hope that President
Obama might embody a little of that ‘fierce urgency of now’, not on
behalf of his own campaign for political office but on behalf of the
people of Libya?” he pleaded.
Among the liberal interventionists, Senator John Kerry stood out. “What
haunts me,” he explained, “is the spectre of Iraq 1991.” He was
referring to the period after the first Gulf war, when the first
President Bush called on the Shi’ites in Iraq to take a stand against
Saddam Hussein. They were subsequently slaughtered in the same appalling
manner as is now occurring in Libya. Kerry also cited Rwanda and Bosnia
— events of such cruelty that it was simply impossible for decent
people to stand by and watch.
Those sentiments are genuine and deeply persuasive on a human level.
Every day innocents are being killed by mercenaries and paramilitaries.
Colonel Muammar Gadaffi’s brutality against his own people is hard to
watch. But statecraft is not the same as moral empathy. And if you
examine the arguments of the neocons and liberal interventionists, they
fail certain core national security tests.
The US has no serious national interests at stake in Libya, and even
after Gadaffi’s co-operation in getting rid of his weapons of mass
destruction, Washington kept him at arm’s length. The opposition is an
assortment of tribes whose only real unity comes from their mutual
loathing of Gadaffi. We have no idea whether, in power, they would be
better than what preceded them.
By its very nature, military intervention can have unintended
consequences. Among the most obvious is that if we arm the rebels, we
have no guarantees of where the weapons will end up. Yes, funnelling
Stinger missiles to the Afghan resistance against the Soviets in the
1980s was very successful. It also gave us a political vacuum into which
came the Taliban and eventually Al-Qaeda.
March 16th, 2011 at 5:00 am
Fine analysis Mahinda,
“Which is in keeping with the good old neo colonial savvy of divide and rule? As long as there suckers, they will be sucked into this kind of simple game plans. In fact people deserve the leaders they get.”
If “leaders” are suckers chosen by the people means the people themselves are suckers is a tragic situation! What is the solution to emancipate people?
March 17th, 2011 at 4:09 am
American, British, French, Norwegians and Dutch more concern about petroleum rather than human rights. Libyan leader Muammar Gadafi said “He will not believe the West any longer” Colonel Gadafi is totally correct. Not only him no one can believe west anymore.
When leaders were pro west puppets then U.S, U.K, France and Norway never utter a word against cruel leaders. Dictators such as Shah of Iran, Suharto of Indonesia, Marcos of Philippines, and Pinochet of Chile were good boys to west.
What west tried to create in Libya the same scenario as South Sudan? After the referendum west can appoint a puppet to South Sudan then the oil reserve comes to their hands. Even in East Timor off shore oil reserves already in the hands of Norway and Australia. That was their target in East Timor independence scenario.
In Libya no fly zone and recognized anti government insurgents by west are none other than interference to an independent state and again they tried to divide Libya in to several states and get north African petroleum resources to their hands.
Following article of global research is clear what west wants in Libya.
`Operation Libya` and the Battle for Oil: Redrawing the Map of Africa.
Pl.Read the article at
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23605