LIBYA: WESTERN DOUBLE STANDARDS

Yohannan Chemerapally

THE request by the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Luis Moreno Ocampo, in the third week of May, for international arrest warrants to be issued against the Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, his son Saif al Gaddafi and the head of the Libyan Intelligence, Abdullah al Sanussi, even as NATO warplanes were wreaking havoc on the country, is yet another illustration of the double standards being adopted by the West. The ICC seems to be specialising in targeting African leaders and heads of State. There already is an ICC warrant of arrest against the Sudanese President, Omar al Bashir. But now that the goal of the West in dividing Sudan has been achieved, the ICC seems to be in no hurry in executing the warrant. As things stand today, Libya too seems to be on the verge of partition, with the proxies of the West being helped by NATO, to retain control of the oil producing eastern part of the country. Gaddafi was repeatedly warned that if he does not give up the fight and leave the country, he would have to meet the fate of former heads of State like Slobodan Milosevic. The Yugoslav leader too had stood up to the military might of NATO.

Many people are of the opinion that it would be more in the fitness of things for the leaders of the US, France and the UK to face war crimes charges. These three countries were responsible for waging the unlawful war on Libya. The UN Charter does not permit the use of military force for so called “humanitarian interventions”. The “no fly zone” authorised by the UN Security Council did not mandate the use of stealth bombers, cruise missiles and predator drones to target civilian centres and infrastructure. The “responsibility to protect” doctrine which evolved after the Rwanda genocide has not been recognised as international law but the West has used it as a pretext to intervene militarily in countries that don’t kowtow to it. Recently the Arab League asked the UN Security Council to impose a no fly zone over Gaza to prevent the killing of Palestinians by Israeli air strikes. There is no possibility of such a request being approved by the UN Security Council given Washington’s unblinking support for Israel. More than 1400 Palestinians, many of them women and children, were killed during the brutal Israeli assault on Gaza two years ago.

INHERENT DUPLICITY

During a discussion on the issue of “Responsibility to Protect” in the UN General Assembly in 2009, the Cuban delegate raised a pertinent point. “Who is to decide if there is an urgent need to intervene in a given State, according to what criteria, in what framework, and on the basis of what conditions? Who decides it is evident that the authorities of a State do not protect their people, and how is it decided? Who determines that peaceful means are not adequate in a certain situation, and on what criteria? Do small States have the prospects of interfering in the affairs of larger States? Would any developed country allow in principle or in practice, humanitarian intervention in their territories?” These questions highlighted the inherent duplicity of the so called “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine being propounded by Obama, Sarkozy and company.

The Nuremberg tribunal set up to try Nazi war criminals had ruled that launching unprovoked wars of aggression is the most serious of war crimes. NATO has been specifically targeting Gaddafi, his family and top officials of his government for physical liquidation. His youngest son and three of his grandchildren have already been killed when a NATO missile demolished their residence in a Tripoli suburb on April 30. The major countries of the world like the US, Russia, China and India are not members of the ICC and reject any accountability to the body. Libya too is not a member and has said that it is not answerable to the diktats of Moreno. The ICC, as recent events have shown, is being increasingly used as a tool by the West, in its bid to re-establish the neo-colonial hold over Africa’s huge natural resources. The ICC has not bothered to seriously investigate the human rights abuses committed by the US in Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries, despite several requests. The ICC wants to arrest Gaddafi for “crimes against humanity” while George W Bush is penning his memoirs in peaceful retirement. At least 650,000 Iraqis were killed as a result of the American occupation of Iraq.

Russia and China have been openly critical of the sharp escalation in NATO military strikes in the part of Libya controlled by the government in Tripoli. On May 19, NATO planes and missiles sunk eight warships of the Libyan Navy which were anchored in the ports of Tripoli, Sirte and Al Khums. The NATO secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, has said that this was part of a game plan to topple the Libyan government. “We have significantly degraded Gaddafi’s war machine. And now we see the results. The opposition has gained ground”. His views were endorsed by President Barack Obama in his May 19 speech. Obama said that time was running out for Gaddafi. “He does not have control over the country” opined the American president. The Libyan government spokesman Musa Ibrahim described the American president’s views “as delusional”. He emphasised that it is not for Obama to decide on the future of Gaddafi. The Libyan people he said “will determine their future”.

NATO is now using EU weaponry to bomb Libyan military assets. Much of Libya’s recent defence purchases were from the very countries engaged in waging war against it. Initially, the three governments spearheading the aggression had hoped that Col Gaddafi would just pack up and leave the country and the rebel rabble in Benghazi would inherit the Libyan government’s military assets. But things have not apparently gone according to the script written at NATO headquarters. Despite the continuous bombing campaign of the last two months, the Libyan government has continued fighting in the face of overwhelming odds. Gaddafi has repeatedly stated that he has no intention of leaving his homeland.

Experts of the region are saying that the battle for Libya has resulted in a military stalemate. The end result could be the balkanisation of the country. Already parallels are being drawn with the situation that prevailed in Afghanistan after the ouster of the secular government in Kabul by the American supported “mujahedin”. The country had consequently witnessed the rise of warlords and radical Islamists. The civil war in Libya has already acquired the contours of a tribal war. Former al Qaeda members are known to be actively fighting alongside the Benghazi rebels. The balkanisation of sovereign African countries, instigated by the West, has in fact already started. It was Sudan last year. Southern Sudan formally seceded last year. Many African countries are facing secessionist challenges. It is in the interest of the West to once again redraw the map of Africa in pursuit of the neo-colonial agenda. Southern Sudan and Libya could only be the beginning.

Many Africa watchers also believe that the war in Libya was triggered by the West to undermine the genuine demands for democracy in the region. By supporting those Libyans opposed to the policies of Gaddafi, the West could pose as a champion of democracy after the negative role it had played in the democratic upheavals in Egypt and Tunisia. Washington till the eleventh hour had supported Hosni Mubarak and Ben Ali. In Bahrain, the Obama administration just stood aside and allowed the government there to brutally crush the democracy movement there.

TAILOR MADE AGENDA

The situation in Libya was tailor made for Washington to pursue its long term military and strategic agenda on the African continent. One of the major goals of the US Africa Command (Africom) currently headquartered in Germany, was set up with the aim of combating the growing Chinese influence in the continent. China was emerging as one of Libya’s key energy partners. Africom was also desperately looking for a military base on the continent. Now with the rebels in Benghazi who owe their survival to Washington’s tender mercies will be more than willing to provide a military base in strategically located Libya. Libya is conveniently situated between Europe and sub-Saharan Africa. Control of Libya would also make the Mediterranean into a “NATO lake”.

The western military intervention also coincided with the Libyan government’s championing of an African Union (AU) that would not be influenced by either the EU or Washington. Gaddafi was the strongest proponent of a separate currency for the continent that would replace the dollar and the Euro. Gaddafi was also toying with the idea of channelling the country’s oil revenue directly to the Libyan people. Gaddafi had said that he was fed up with the corruption in the country’s administrative set up. “The administration has failed. The State economy has failed. The solution is that we Libyans directly take the oil money and decide what to do with it”, Gaddafi had told the media. The West had feared a new round of “nationalisations”. After Gaddafi’s rapprochement with the West eight years ago, for which he is no doubt repenting, western oil companies had once again entered the lucrative Libyan market. The Libyan bureaucracy and many influential figures in the government had stymied Gaddafi’s efforts to distribute the oil wealth directly to the people. Today, many of them are with the Benghazi rebels.

Gaddafi may feel betrayed but not too surprised at the turn of events. In his marathon speech at the UN General Assembly two years ago, he had listed the many instances in which the Security Council was hijacked by the West to target leaders who had stood up for just causes. He mentioned the attack against Gamal Abdel Nasser during the Suez crisis of 1956. Nasser’s fault was that he called for Arab unity against colonialism. Gaddafi also gave the examples of the wars in Korea and Vietnam, both instigated by Washington, in which millions of people lost their lives. He bemoaned the role of the Security Council, calling it “the terror council” controlled by the US. Gaddafi said that the American presidents, since the founding of the UN, are still sending the same message. “And we shall lead the world, and we shall punish anyone whether they like it or not. We shall punish anyone who is against us”, he had said in his speech. He had warned that all heads of State who dared to raise their voices against US hegemony will meet the fate of leaders of Yugoslavia, Grenada, Panama and Somalia. All of them paid the price for opposing the USA, the pre-eminent permanent member of the Security Council. Manuel Noriega, the Panamanian president is still in jail. Slobodan Milosevic died in jail. Gaddafi, from available indications, would prefer to die with his boots on, rather than spend his remaining days in a prison cell in The Hague.

Courtesy: People’s Democracy

END INTERVENTION IN LIBYA: CPI (M)

The Polit Bureau of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) issued the following statement on May 1, 2011.

THE killing of the youngest son of Muammar Gaddafi, Seif al-Arab, and the deaths of three young children belonging to the family in a NATO air strike in Tripoli is a barbarous act. The CPI (M) strongly condemns this criminal act.

The NATO forces are targeting Gaddafi and other leaders for assassination. This exposes the real intention of the military intervention which is to effect a “regime change” in Libya. Those responsible for this crime should be held accountable.

There should be an immediate halt to the military strikes by the NATO in Libya. India should demand an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council to put an end to the military intervention and to initiate talks for a ceasefire and a political settlement.

Courtesy: People’s Democracy

WAR IMPOSED ON LIBYA

CLICK TO ENLARGE

ATTACKS ON LIBYA: IMPERIALISM’S DOUBLE STANDARDS - SITARAM YECHURY

TWO years ago, soon after ascending to presidency, Barack Obama had chosen Cairo, the capital of Egypt to address what was termed as the 'Muslim World'. Riding on the shoulders of a huge peace movement and with his trademark flowery rhetoric at the Al Azhar in Cairo, Obama had promised a different presidency from that of his predecessor and a “new beginning”. But as we had warned in these columns, imperialism, like a leopard can never change its spots. The lessons from Afghanistan and Iraq were not learnt. This is precisely what we are witnessing in Libya.

Yet another imperialist military intervention in West Asia has begun with French air strikes on Libya, ignoring the worldwide public opinion against their intervention. The Arab League, whose support was instrumental in passing the no-fly zone resolution in the UN, expressed its dismay at the NATO air strikes and openly stated “what happened differs from the no-fly zone objectives” and “what we wanted was civilians' protection, not shelling more civilians”. The 53-member state African Union too has affirmed its opposition to “any kind of foreign military intervention” in Libya and urged the United States, France and Britain to “immediately stop” military aggression against Libya. Apart from these blocks, the ALBA, consisting of many Latin American countries led by Cuba and Venezuela too criticised the imperialist move. Members of the UN Security Council, Germany and Japan joined its permanent members, China and Russia in condemning this aggression.

The US-sponsored NATO operation has been launched ostensibly to prevent Gaddafi's forces from attacking its people. This direct interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign country, an intervention that is the biggest since the military occupation of Iraq, comes under the sanction of a UN Security Council resolution. The no-fly zone is being interpreted by imperialist powers as a sanction for military intervention and possible occupation of Libya. This overzealousness of imperialism clearly betrays its eagerness to retain its hegemonic control over the oil rich region and prevent any realignment of forces that could be detrimental to its interests. The region has proven, accumulative reserves of 103.2 billion tons of residual fuel oil in 2009, or 55.6 per cent of the proven total global oil reserves.

GEO-POLITICAL INTERESTS OF IMPERIALISM

Imperialism's double standards become clear with the US-inspired Saudi Arabian military intervention in Bahrain to prop up the Khalifa, intensely opposed by the people who are seeking better standards of livelihood along with human rights and democracy. In Libya, imperialism seeks a regime change and in Bahrain it seeks to sustain the autocratic rule of the Khalifa family that has lorded over the country since 1783. Both interventions are ironically in the name of protecting the people. The reason for such a double standard is not far to seek. Bahrain is home to the US navy's fifth fleet and has been its steadfast ally. Libya on the other hand, is not such a firm ally. Further, Libyan oil reserves and importantly the ocean of fossil water reserves on which its deserts lie today have the potential of more lucrative profits than oil. A regime change here could well be to imperialism's advantage, while in Bahrain it is not.

Behind these military interventions lie the basic geo-political interests of imperialism in the region. The post-World War I history of the region is replete with occupations and military interventions where the sole objective was to control its energy resources. Post Second World War, in a brazen effort towards reversing the gains of de-colonisation, US intervened to topple democratically elected
popular regimes like in Iran and foist dictatorships and pliant regimes. On the one hand, its propping up of Israel, military aggressiveness against Arab countries, denying Palestinians their homeland and on the other, the propping up of client regimes through massive military and 'aid' programs, ensured imperialism’s hegemonic control over the region.

The situation however dramatically changed during the past few months when the rise of popular protests snowballed across the region leading to the downfall of pro-US regimes in Egypt and Tunisia. Hosni Mubarak's Egypt was imperialism's lynchpin in the region. With its fall and popular protests rising in other pro-US countries like Yemen, Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc, imperialist hegemony in the region came under a severe threat. All these countries received massive US military assistance. Bahrain alone received over $100 million from the US since 2003. It is indeed ironic that the weapons being used by Gaddafi's forces today, were provided by the US and other NATO allies, in the first place.

POPULAR UPSURGES

The recent popular upsurges have been triggered by the devastating impact of the global economic crisis, which has sharply increased burdens on the people through massive lay-offs and rise in prices. Libya, however in contrast, as Fidel Castro reminds us, occupies the first place in the human development index for Africa and has the highest life expectancy in the continent. It has a system of food security, essential social services, education and health for its people and was providing employment to large numbers from neighbouring countries. However, the images of the protesting youth unmistakably are the expression of indignation. The popular demands for a better life, a better political and social ordering and the ability or the inability of its ruling dispensation to meet these aspirations are matters that have to be settled within sovereign boundaries of independent countries.

The military intervention in Bahrain a week earlier however, has come under the terms of the Joint Peninsular Shield established in 1990 under the umbrella of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), a six-nation regional organisation, where any member state can seek military assistance from another in the face of an external threat. The threat that the ruling autocracy in Bahrain faces is entirely internal. The GCC is estimated to have a $1.34 trillion of surplus assets accumulated in the last few years alone as oil revenues. The escalation of popular protests in Bahrain could well snowball into other GCC states spiralling a political destabilisation that jeopardises such huge reserves. Already protest marches in at least four different locations in Saudi Arabia have been met with repression.

This popular upsurge in various countries of the West Asia, has also negated imperialism's stereotypical projection of any uprising in an Islamic country to the rise of fundamentalism and therefore to terrorism. The Bahraini opposition groups in a joint statement have put it succinctly, “this tri-partite coalition adopts the choice of bringing down the existing regime in Bahrain and the establishment of a democratic republican system”. The people in Islamic countries, like people anywhere else in the world aspire for better living standards, human rights and liberty. This aspiration gets exponentially magnified in countries where for centuries they have been under oppressive, autocratic rule backed by imperialism.

If people are sovereign, then they must be allowed to decide on their future in their sovereign country. Imperialism must be forced to roll back this military intervention. The countries that abstained in UN Security Council, including India, must now assert and stop this yet another military aggression in West Asia.

Courtesy: www.pd.cpim.org/