There's no mention of the Socialist International in that letter, Fidel?
Check out the SI web site. They are supportive of the pro democracy rebels. I think there could be a few of them within the al-Qaeda/US and British-backed end of it. I'm on the fence sort of. But the bombing should stop yesterday, and Jack Layton says so in the letter. Bombing achieves nothing. The "no-fly" zone is violated daily now.
"pro-democracy rebels" - There maybe some elements there that have intentions of forming some bourgois democracy but there are loads of people who were happy to work with Qaddafi until they pre-maturely thought the writing was on the wall. Do not forget some Al Quaeda types too.
"By early March, two key poles started to emerge in the heterogeneous Libyan opposition: one, centered on the Youth of February 17, the popular committees, and other forces who had formed the core of the early mass demonstrations; and a second one, convening generals, ex-members of Qaddafi's government, and other longtime elite opposition figures. This second group forms the core of the National Transitional Council (NTC), announced March 5. The thirty-one-member Council, chaired by Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the Libyan justice minister until only a few months ago, has declared itself the "sole legitimate body representing the Libyan people and the Libyan state." To date, France, Italy, Qatar, and the Maldives have recognized it as the legitimate Libyan government.
From its formation, the Council canvassed Western capitals for support against Qaddafi. Initially they met with skepticism. Italy's foreign minister accused the opposition of harboring al-Qaeda elements. For its part, the U.S. appeared as a bystander. An internal debate inside the Obama administration tried to ascertain the direction of the revolution. If Qaddafi could succeed in rolling back the revolution, the U.S. would verbally castigate him while secretly thanking him for cutting short the Arab revolution before it spilled over into a place, like Bahrain or Saudi Arabia, that really concerned the U.S.
But as the outcome in Libya appeared increasingly uncertain and the possibility of a protracted civil war looked increasingly likely, Western countries decided to move. The first out of the gate was France, which recognized the rebels as the legitimate government of Libya. France's loathsome Islamaphobe president Nicholas Sarkozy began amplifying calls, emanating from the NTC, for a United Nations-sanctioned "no-fly zone" over Libya. Liberals on both sides of the Atlantic began banging the drum for "humanitarian" military intervention to stop Qaddafi's forces from massacring the opposition. Soon other former colonizers of Africa, including Britain and Italy, started clamoring for intervention.
Although late to arrive, the U.S.'s ultimate decision to support the UN "no-fly zone" shifted the balance in its favor. The White House spin portrayed President Barack Obama's decision to go to war in Libya as a triumph for a triumvirate of liberals-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, UN Ambassador Susan Rice, and Obama adviser Samantha Power-who have well-established records of advocating the use of U.S. military force for "humanitarian" purposes. But Pepe Escobar, the Asia Times correspondent, offered a more plausible accounting of the decision based on his reporting from the UN:
You invade Bahrain. We take out Muammar Qaddafi in Libya. This, in short, is the essence of a deal struck between the Barack Obama administration and the House of Saud. Two diplomatic sources at the United Nations independently confirmed that Washington, via Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, gave the go-ahead for Saudi Arabia to invade Bahrain and crush the pro-democracy movement in their neighbor in exchange for a "yes" vote by the Arab League for a no-fly zone over Libya-the main rationale that led to United Nations Security Council resolution 1973.
Clinton's meeting with NTC representatives in late March may also have helped to sew up U.S. support for intervention. The Council has already publicly stated that it will honor the Qaddafi government's oil contracts and debts. We can only imagine what other assurances Clinton managed to extract from the Council. "
from
Libya's revolution, U.S. intervention, and the left By Lance Selfa
http://isreview.org/issues/77/feat-libya&left.shtml
There's no mention of the Socialist International in that letter, Fidel?
Check out the SI web site. They are supportive of the pro democracy rebels. I think there could be a few of them within the al-Qaeda/US and British-backed end of it. I'm on the fence sort of. But the bombing should stop yesterday, and Jack Layton says so in the letter. Bombing achieves nothing. The "no-fly" zone is violated daily now.
Don't blame the African Union for the NDP's moral cowardice. On June 15 the African Union High Level Ad hoc Committee on Libya told the UN Security Council:
An attack on Libya or any other member of the African Union without express agreement by the AU is a dangerous provocation that should be avoided given the relaxed international situation in the last 20 years since the release of Nelson Mandela from jail and the eventual freedom of South Africa.2. The UN is on safer ground if it confines itself on maintaining international peace and deterring war among member states.
3 . Intervening in internal affairs of States should be avoided except where there is proof of genocide or imminent genocide as happened in Rwanda or against the Jews in Germany and the European countries that were occupied by the Third Reich.
4. There are differences on the issue of Libya as to whether there was proof of genocide or intended genocide. Fighting between Government troops and armed insurrectionists is not genocide. It is civil war....
5. Whatever the genesis of the intervention by NATO in Libya, the AU called for dialogue before the UN resolutions 1970 and 1973 and after those Resolutions.
Ignoring the AU for three months and going on with the bombings of the sacred land of Africa has been high-handed, arrogant and provocative. This is something that should not be sustained.
To a discerning mind, such a course is dangerous. It is unwise for certain players to be intoxicated with technological superiority and begin to think they alone can alter the course of human history towards freedom for the whole of mankind. Certainly, no constellation of states should think that they can recreate hegemony over Africa.
6. The safer way is to use the ability to talk, to resolve all problems.
7 . The UN or anybody acting on behalf of the UN must be neutral in relation to the internal affairs of states. Certainly, that should be the case with respect to African countries. The UN should not take sides in a civil war. The UN should promote dialogue, peaceful resolution of conflicts, and help in enforcing agreements arrived at after negotiations such as the agreement on the Sudan.
8. Regardless of the genesis of the Libyan problem, the correct way forward now is dialogue without pre-conditions. The demand by some countries that Col. Muammar Gadaffi must go first before the dialogue is incorrect. Whether Gadaffi goes or stays is a matter for the Libyan people to decide. It is particularly wrong when the demand for Gadaffi's departure is made by outsiders.
9 . In order for dialogue, without pre-conditions, to take place, we need a ceasefire in place that should be monitored by the AU troops among others. This will help the AU to confirm the veracity of the stories of Gadaffi killing civilians intentionally.
Excerpted from [url=http://www.counterpunch.org/rugunda06222011.html]HERE[/url]
2. The UN is on safer ground if it confines itself on maintaining international peace and deterring war among member states.
Which is what the original intention of the U.N. was.
3 . Intervening in internal affairs of States should be avoided except where there is proof of genocide or imminent genocide as happened in Rwanda or against the Jews in Germany and the European countries that were occupied by the Third Reich.
Unfortunately, that was not one of the reasons why Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, the U.S.A. (countries that were not attacked by nazi Germany) etc., entered WW2.
Except that WW II was not really an example of the international community "intervening in [the] internal affairs" of Nazi Germany, and I don't take the statement as alleging that it was (nor either in the case of Rwanda, where there was no international move to prevent the genocide). It certainly wasn't a comparable situation to today's Libya, which has yet to annex the Sudetenland and invade Poland.
Except that WW II was not really an example of the international community "intervening in [the] internal affairs" of Nazi Germany, and I don't take the statement as alleging that it was (nor either in the case of Rwanda, where there was no international move to prevent the genocide).
Yes, what the intent was to set a legal and moral threshold where such military intervention would be legally and morally justified/acceptable.
It succeeds if one accepts the idealized hypothetical WW2 and Rwanda scenarios offered.
It falls if one looks at the reality of the two historical events.
It's a dangerous tightrope to walk because once again, this is a rephrasing of the R2P or humanitarian war argument.
Often (if not always) cataclysmic tragedies like the Armenian genocide of WW1, the mass human caused starvation of Ukrainians in 1934-35 U.S.S.R., the Holocaust of WW2, the Pol Pot genocide in Cambodia, the Rwanda genocide, etc., are often caused or enabled by American/European/our acts of commission and/or omission, intention and/or apathy/not caring.
Concerning Libya, clearly the claims by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron, U.S. President Barack Obama and others, about Gadhafi forces either committing or (worse still because even less verifiable), about to commit mass killings or "genocide" to justify the war on Libya, are demonstrable falsehoods and distortions.
