http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2011/1052/op9.htm Arab spring but no Arab summer? The NATO-led attack on Libya is a textbook example of European and American imperialism, writes Jeremy Salt* The attack on Libya is a copy-book example of high imperialism -- gunboat diplomacy in the crudest fashion. Extraordinarily, only eight years after the US-led invasion of Iraq, the US and European governments are at it again. The door was opened for them by the "rebels", whom they have gladly accepted as the "transitional government", and the UN Security Council provided the cover as it has done on numerous other occasions. The restrictions included in Resolution 1973 were so loose as to amount to no restrictions at all. Basically, it was a mandate for the attacking governments to do what they liked, and this is just what they have been doing. In the name of protecting civilians, they have killed hundreds of civilians, and probably thousands of men in uniform. There have also been deliberate attempts to kill Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. In one of them, his son and three of his grandchildren were killed, the latter all infants and one only a few months old. The mother of one of the children, Aisha Gaddafi, has initiated legal proceedings in Brussels against those deemed to be responsible under the heading of war crimes. This was a deliberate attack on a suburban home in an attempt to kill the children's grandfather and not, as the liars at NATO headquarters said, an attack on a "command and control centre" unless they are talking about the kitchen where meals are prepared for the children and the bathroom where they are washed. Gaddafi only survived the "precision bombing" because he was out the back at the time. So eager were the propagandists that they began by claiming the children had not been killed because the coffin lids were closed. In fact, the bodies were blown to bits. The murder of these infants left the mainstream media unruffled. Only former US congresswoman Catherine McKinney seems to have taken the trouble of going to the house and describing what this precision bombing actually did. This is not a "NATO war". This is a war launched by the governments of the US, Britain and France. NATO, their cover, is a transnational mercenary organisation supplying troops on demand for their wars. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, it has had no other role. So far, there has been no direct engagement because the attacking forces are hoping to finish off Gaddafi from the air. That way they won't have to put "boots on the ground". That way they won't take casualties, and that way public opinion at home won't be stirred into action. At the moment, they can bomb Gaddafi, but he can't bomb them. The government in Tripoli does not have the capacity to hit 10 Downing Street or the White House with a precision bomb, or to send attack helicopters to blow up government buildings inside the Washington Beltway. What would they say if it did? That this is outrageous? That you can't do this to us? And that is the whole point. We know that you can't do this to us, but we have the means and we are going to keep doing it to you for as long as it takes to destroy you. Many civilians had already died when these foreign governments jumped in to prevent the "rebels" from being defeated and to protect civilians. Now, they themselves have killed hundreds. Ten days ago, the government in Tripoli put out a statement claiming that about 700 civilians had been killed in these American, French and British air attacks. Given the intensity of the daily bombings, there seems little reason to doubt the accuracy of this statement, and many more civilians have died since. These include 13 imams wiped out in an early morning missile attack on the town of Brega. Can you imagine the reaction if some crazy leader wiped out 13 Christian clerics as they were gathering for morning prayer? But these leaders are not crazy: they are the leaders of what they themselves like to call the "free world," which apparently means free for them to do whatever they want. The victims include various civilians on duty at the Bab Al-Aziziya compound in Tripoli. It has been bombed time and time again. More than 30 people were killed in one attack which began in mid morning and did not end until after midnight. When the "defiant" Gaddafi said he was staying in Libya, dead or alive, they bombed it again. They have reached the point where they are bombing only rubble. The only point of this exercise is to terrorise the civilian population and show them that their leader cannot even defend his own capital. The western media is covering up the number of civilians killed in these attacks and is showing almost nothing of the massive infrastructural damage. All we see are massive plumes of smoke on the horizon, or the skeleton of a burnt- out tank or armoured car. We don't see the ruins of the government ministries that have been attacked. There is very little questioning of what international law has to say about the war, or the numerous attempts to murder a head of state, as Gaddafi has to be regarded despite his formal lack of title. Gaddafi remains the only person to have looked for a negotiated way out of this conflict. He has made offers to sit down and talk directly to the "rebels". He has made offers through the African Union. It is significant that the UN secretary-general has made no attempt of his own to broker a peace. Every single offer made by Gaddafi has been rejected out of hand by the rebels and the governments keeping them on their feet. Of course, they don't want to talk to Gaddafi. They want to destroy him, just as British prime minister Anthony Eden wanted to destroy Gamal Abdel-Nasser in the Tripartite Aggression in 1956. The rebels are their stalking horse. At a time of savage cuts to social welfare, education and the funding of local councils, the British government has set aside one billion pounds for the overthrow of Gaddafi. The US economy is in even worse shape, but there's still plenty of cash in the pipeline for the wars on Afghanistan and Libya. As part of the attack on Libya, it has frozen $30 billion worth of Libyan investments in the US. Confiscated or expropriated would be better words than the anemic "frozen". European governments have dutifully followed suit, but with estimated gold bullion holdings of more than 143 tons, Gaddafi still has the means to continue their war indefinitely, as they cannot, unless they finish him off quickly. At a time of financial stringency, why are these governments spending so much money trying to destroy Gaddafi? Oil can safely be regarded as part of the answer. Libya has immense reserves, and while these governments were already getting a plentiful supply and being given generous concessions, nothing is ever enough for governments that like total control and even more bountiful profits. Then there is Gaddafi's maverick place in the international financial order. In Latin America, his friend, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, despised by the same people who despise Gaddafi, has overseen the formation of a cartel of governments refusing to have anything more to do with the IMF. Gaddafi does not want or need the IMF either. He has backed his anti-imperialist rhetoric over the years with plans to set up an African central bank, an African monetary fund and an African central investment agency. The prospect of an IMF-free zone in Africa is itself enough for western governments to want to get rid of him. Yet another reason is strategic location. Bases in Africa and the Indian Ocean are central to US military planning for the Middle East. Africom -- the central US military command -- is based at Djibouti. With the Fifth Fleet based at Bahrain, with an integrated defence system developed with Saudi Arabia and with the stockpiling arrangements long since in place as part of the US-Israel relationship, the US is also well placed inside the Middle East. Egypt has not quite been lost, yet it is unlikely to go back to where it once was, creating a vacancy along the North African coastline. Libya meets all the requirements, and in many ways it is better suited for the role than Egypt. The western governments are also homing in on Syria. For the US and Israel, the destruction of the country's Baathist government would be a strategic victory far surpassing the sidelining of Egypt through the 1979 Camp David Treaty. It would bring down the central arch in the strategic relationship between Iran, Syria and Hizbullah. It would mean the destruction of the common front standing in defence of Lebanon and the Palestinians. The demands being made by the Syrian people for political reform are authentic and valid. At the same time, their demonstrations have been used as a cover by armed groups whose interest is not reform but the downfall of the regime. Their attacks on police and troops have largely been ignored by the western media. Only when they reached a crescendo with an all-out assault in and around the northern border town of Jisr Al-Shughur did it take notice. There, dozens of Syrian police, soldiers and civilians were killed by men armed with rocket- propelled grenade launchers as well as smaller weapons. According to reports in the Arab press, they were underground cells of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, which has been waiting its moment for revenge since the ruthless and very bloody crushing of its uprising in the Syrian city of Hama in 1982. While giving maximum publicity to the terrible murder and mutilation of Hamza Al-Khatib, the young boy picked up by Syrian security forces during a demonstration, the western media has ignored or dismissed the atrocities committed at Jisr Al-Shughur, including beheadings and the mutilation of bodies. A truckload of arms caught on the Syrian- Turkish border indicates that these groups of armed men are being helped from outside. The media has been quick to point the finger at Iran, when the most likely source is Iraq and the most likely beneficiary the armed gangs. Northern Iraq is awash with weapons, and it is a natural staging ground for subversive operations against Iran or Syria. It is unlikely that the downfall of the government in Syria will lead to a peaceful transition to democracy in the country. Even worse turmoil than we are now seeing is more likely, with the Muslim Brotherhood hunting down every last Baathist and Alawi. Against the background of a long record of subversion, spying and assassination in virtually all Middle Eastern countries, outside forces are certain to be involved in the Syrian uprising. Syria is the visceral enemy of Israel and a long-term target of dirty tricks, assassinations and armed attacks, as well as decades of sanctions imposed by the US. Mossad and the CIA have agents everywhere, and they would not be doing their job if they were not trying to keep this pot on the boil. What a sweet victory it would be if in the name of reform the Baathist government could be destroyed. The Saudis have their own reasons to help things along. They loathe and fear Shias of any description. Iran, Hizbullah and the so-called Alawi regime in Damascus are on the top of the list of their enemies. Smuggling arms across the border from Turkey or Iraq by one or more of these enemies of the Syrian regime would not be difficult and neither would seeding the demonstrations with provocateurs. Given all the circumstances, the best option would surely be for the Syrian government to be given time to put its reforms into effect. President Bashar Al-Assad is personally popular and seems well-intended, but he is trapped within an ossified political system. The protests were his opportunity to shake it up, but for those inside and outside Syria who want nothing less than the overthrow of the regime, time and the opportunity to prove that he is sincere are things that Al-Assad cannot be given. Both Al-Assad and Gaddafi have been referred to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for investigation. The ICC is yet another weapon in the arsenal of western governments, taking its place alongside the UN Security Council. The US doesn't accept its jurisdiction over US nationals, but does not hesitate to use it against people it doesn't like. Without producing any evidence, the chief prosecutor is now publicly accusing Gaddafi of promoting mass rape. Did Gaddafi really promote mass rape, or will we only find out the truth when he has gone and the accusation has served its purpose, like the babies allegedly thrown out of their cribs by Iraqi soldiers in Kuwait in 1990 and the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in 2003? The propaganda war is again raging, and the western media is again playing its part. With the exceptions of its coverage of the uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, the bias in Al-Jazeera's reporting has been just as bad if not worse. Across the region, the west and its regional allies are working hard to stake out new positions that will enable them to control the Middle East as before. They want to drain, contain and divert the Arab revolutions, and they are using whatever tactics they think will work, including bribery in the form of economic and investment assistance, military attack and the support of movements which serve their interests and the suppression of those that don't. There is a very real danger that the events of 2011 will be remembered not for what was gained but for what was lost. The Arab spring is at risk of passing directly to an Arab winter, with no summer in between. * The writer is an associate professor of Middle Eastern history and politics at Bilkent University, Ankara. * Front Page * Egypt * Economy * Region * International * Opinion * Readers' corner * Press review * Culture * Features * Entertainment * Living * Sports * People * Sky High * Cartoons * Listings * BOOKS * TRAVEL * Site map © Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
just an interesting article I read about the definition of war or if we are in fact at war with Libya. There was a side discussion in the Weiner thread about this issue.
im sure the fact that obama says we are not at war is great comfort to all those civilians who got bombed and killed the other day!
There is a very real danger that the events of 2011 will be remembered not for what was gained but for what was lost. The Arab spring is at risk of passing directly to an Arab winter, with no summer in between. The histories of the US Armed Forces and the CIA are filled with examples of breaking stalemates with bold, high risk initiatives. I wonder if, in the information age, controlling the perception of power from within it's borders couldn't be more effective than confronting it from outside? Maybe, with even with less understanding of the unintended consequences or eventual outcome. Think General Buck Turgidson with Facebook bombs.
The House is considering a bill to cut off funding for US's Libya operations. Just my own comment before the article is that this was very poorly handled by the Admin. and for an Admin. that deferred too much to Congress on several other issues very surprising. That said I think it would be a big mistake for Congress to cut off funding and I highly doubt they will. This will call into question the further viability of NATO, which is already in trouble, in an operation where finally the other allies are taking the lead. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43521037/ns/politics-capitol_hill House weighs halting funds for US's Libya mission Meanwhile, reports from Libya paint a picture of Gadhafi as ready to flee from Tripoli WASHINGTON — Clearly frustrated with President Barack Obama, Republican leaders are propelling the House toward crucial votes on the U.S. military role in Libya that could embarrass the commander in chief and reverberate in Tripoli and NATO capitals. "I just believe that because of the president's failure to consult with the Congress, failure to outline for the American people why we were doing this before we engaged in this puts us in the position where we have to defend our responsibility under the Constitution," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in advancing two measures. The House was scheduled to vote Friday on the competing measures: A resolution giving Obama limited authority to continue the American involvement in the NATO-led operation against Moammar Gadhafi's forces and a bill to cut off funds for U.S. military attacks there. The bill would make an exception for search and rescue efforts, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, aerial refueling and operational planning to continue the NATO effort. "The president has ignored the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution, but he cannot ignore a lack of funding," said Rep. Tom Rooney, R-Fla., sponsor of the bill. "Only Congress has the power to declare war and the power of the purse, and my bill exercises both of those powers by blocking funds for the war in Libya unless the president receives congressional authorization," he added. Gadhafi to flee? Meanwhile in Libya, reports painted a picture of Gadhafi as a man ready to throw in the towel as he comes under growing pressure. U.S. intelligence showed that the Libyan leader was "seriously considering" fleeing Tripoli for a more secure location outside the capital, U.S. officials told NBC News, raising the prospect that the Libyan leader's hold on power was increasingly fragile. The intelligence depicted Gadhafi as someone who "doesn't feel safe anymore" in Tripoli because of stepped-up NATO strikes and by rebel battlefield gains, according to the senior national-security official. Gaddafi vowed in a state television broadcast this week to fight on until the end. A rebel uprising backed since March by a NATO-led bombing campaign has so far failed to dislodge him. Rebels also reportedly ruled out any role for Muammar Gaddafi in a future government but could let him remain "in a remote part of Libya'' as part of a settlement, according to a French report. The Le Figaro newspaper quoted Mahmoud Shammam, spokesman for the rebel National Transitional Council (NTC), as confirming indirect talks were going on with Gaddafi's side. "We consider that he has to resign himself to leaving or accept retirement in a remote part of Libya. We have no objection to him retreating to a Libyan oasis under international control,'' he added. Furious at Obama House Republicans and Democrats are furious with Obama for failing to seek congressional authorization for the 3-month-old war against Libya, as required under the War Powers Resolution. The 1973 law, often ignored by Republican and Democratic presidents, says the commander in chief must seek congressional consent within 60 days. That deadline has long passed. Obama stirred congressional unrest last week when he told lawmakers he didn't need authorization because the operation was not full-blown hostilities. NATO commands the operation, but the United States still plays a significant support role that includes aerial refueling of warplanes and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance work as well as drone attacks and bombings. A New York Times report that said Obama overruled some of his legal advisers further incensed members of Congress. A coalition of anti-war Democrats and tea party-backed Republicans are expected to defeat the resolution in a repudiation of the president. "The war in Libya is illegal, unconstitutional and unwarranted. It must end," Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, said. The fate of the legislation to cut off funds was uncertain. Clinton meeting In a last-ditch effort Thursday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton met with rank-and-file Democrats to explain the mission and discuss the implications if the House votes to cut off funds. The administration requested the closed-door meeting. Rep. Tim Walz, D-Minn., said Clinton apologized for not coming to Congress earlier. But he said she warned about the implications of a House vote to cut off money. "The secretary expressed her deep concern that you're probably not on the right track when Gadhafi supports your efforts," Walz said. Story: Italy's call for Libya ceasefire exposes NATO rift Rep. Howard Berman of California, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said such a vote "ensures the failure of the whole mission." Earlier this week Clinton said lawmakers were free to raise questions, but she asked, "Are you on Gadhafi's side, or are you on the side on the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been bringing them support?" In the Senate, backers of a resolution to authorize the operation wondered whether the administration had waited too long to address the concerns of House members. "It's way late," said Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee. "This is one of the reasons why they're having this veritable uprising in the House, because of a lack of communication. And then the icing on the cake was probably for them when he (Obama) said that we're not engaged in hostilities. That obviously is foolishness." He added, however, "That is not a reason to pass a resolution that would encourage Moammar Gadhafi to stay in power." Earlier this month, the House voted 268-145 to rebuke Obama for failing to provide a "compelling rationale" for the Libyan mission and for launching U.S. military forces without congressional approval.
It's so weird to see republicans attacking a democratic president over the war powers act while a democratic president tells republican congress that bombing a country while they work to overthrow its leader is not "hostilities." It's like I went to bed and woke up in Wonder Land.
Except that the Supremacy Clause is in the Constitution. Article VI This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Depending on how this is read it looks to me like the Supremacy clause would still make Treaties take precedence over conflicting parts of the Constitution or State laws. For example Texas can't pass a law that conflicts with NAFTA.
Considering that NATO couldn't even act in the Balkans without the US taking the lead, and that was in Europe, this is a huge step.
I'm going to withdraw this as the case Reid V. Covert clarified that the Constitution supersedes international treaties. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert
A treaty would take precedence over a state law, but not over the Constitution. I think this is the basic hierarchy of laws: Constitution>federal statutes and treaties>state constitutions>state statutes.
So take a stand. What do you want: boots on the ground? or a failed revolt with Gadaffi still the Dictator of Libya?
Rumor has it that Saif al-Islam has been captured. Victory celebrations in Tripolis. I think the end might be near for Gaddafi, finally.
Rebels in the center of Libya and two of Gadafi's sons are reported captured. Gadafi though is still at large. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44218013/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/?gt1=43001#.TlGeRV3SzHo
