Libya - civil unrest & now NATO involvement

[Crispy]

With so many countries being involved, do you not think if oil was the motive that we would have heard one at least of them talking about it in a press conference?

Of course not! Jesus! States being transparent in their motives, that'll be the day

 

[weltweit]

Ok I've had enough of your ignorance now. Why do you take everything at face value, have their not been enough events in your lifetime that would make you think twice before swallowing everything and erroneously taking PR at face value?

Most of the time, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck!

 

[elbows]

Your duckdar has a problem with its quack detection algorithm then.

 

[weltweit]

Your duckdar has a problem with its quack detection algorithm then.

Go on then, tell me what you think the three players in Libya are up to.
1) Gaddafi's forces
2) The pro democracy rebels
3) The U.N. Coalition

 

[London_Calling]

1) Getting paid
2) Not getting paid
3) Sharpening their drilling tools

 

[dylans]

The African Union was in favour

No it wasn't.

In a statement released Mar. 20, the day after international military action began, the ad-hoc High Level AU Panel on Libya said it opposed any foreign military intervention in Libya.

"Our desire is that Libya's unity and territorial integrity be respected as well as the rejection of any kind of foreign military intervention," the panel said following a meeting in the Mauritanian capital, Nouakchott.

The panel was formed at the last meeting of the AU's Peace and Security Council in Addis Ababa, and includes Mauritania, South Africa, Mali and Congo and Uganda.

 

[Spion]

Most of the time, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck!

And you're having trouble working out what's going on when the most powerful countries in the world, who also happen to be home to the world's largest oil companies, militarily intervene in a state that produces high quality cheap oil and has a troublesome leader they and their allies would like to see replaced?

Yeah, it's all about saving the people, isn't it? x 10

 

[Idris2002]

Have you guys seen this new story, which claims that a Libyan government envoy visited London recently to try and arrange some sort of face-saving compromise solution for Gaddafi and Sons?

http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/idAFLDE7300N320110401?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

 

[phildwyer]

Couldn't resist posting this. At first I thought it was an Onion type satire but apparently it is serious. According to the New York Times Libyans are glad their children are being killed by NATO airstrikes. "Thank you NATO for killing my baby"



What a thoroughly vomit inducing piece of propaganda

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/africa/31casualty.html?_r=1

I believe it. That "relative" could have been anyone. The NYT doesn't knowingly print falsehoods, they're in the best liberal objectivity tradition.

 

[teqniq]

@Idris2002 Yea it's in the Graun and been on R4 all morning. Dodgy deals r us.

 

[teqniq]

Looks like everyone wants to talk:

(CBS/AP) BENGHAZI, Libya - A Libyan opposition leader says the rebels will accept a U.N.-demanded cease-fire if Moammar Gadhafi pulls his forces from all cities and allows peaceful protests.
Mustafa Abdul-Jalil spoke Thursday during a joint press conference with U.N. envoy Abdelilah Al-Khatib. Al-Khatib is visiting the rebels' de-facto stronghold of Benghazi in hopes of reaching a cease-fire and political solution to the crisis embroiling the North African nation....

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/01/501364/main20049578.shtml

 

[Idris2002]

BBC quotes a doctor as saying that a recent airstrike did indeed kill civilians, in a story that seems to pass the smell test, to me anyway.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12931731

Also looks to me like there'll be some kind of negotiated settlement soon - one that involves the rebels negotiating from a position of weakness:

The news comes as opposition leader Mustafa Abdul Jalil said the rebels would agree to a ceasefire if Col Muammar Gaddafi's troops withdrew from cities.

"We agree on a ceasefire on the condition that our brothers in the western cities have freedom of expression and also that the forces that are besieging the cities withdraw," he told a news conference in the eastern rebel stronghold of Benghazi.

 

[Divisive Cotton]

Interesting development:

1329: The BBC's Nick Springate reports from Libya's eastern town of Brega that for the first time, rag-tag rebel forces have been bolstered by a number of well-armed, seemingly well-trained soldiers in full military attire. It's not clear where they've come from, our correspondent says, but their very presence has boosted morale on the front line. "

 

[Idris2002]

Are they speaking French, carrying axes and sporting full beards?

 

[Divisive Cotton]

Why would they carry an axe?

 

[Crispy]

Is there a short wry one, a fat strong one, an old bearded one and a litttle dog?

 

[Spion]

Why would they carry an axe?

French Foreign Legion sappers' ceremonial dress, apparently. I had to look it up

 

[Divisive Cotton]

I thought he was referring to Asterix:

 

[Luther Blissett]

I supported U.N. Security Council resolution 1973 which permitted the defence of Benghazi.

If you did not then you supported the sacking of Benghazi, the slaughter of the armed rebels, the supression of the people and the dissapearance of the regime's critics.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. Are you really so naive to believe the coalition has no interest in Libya's resources?

It is more than a hunch that the coalition's ''humanitarian'' mission is less about protecting civilians and more about protecting western companies' business interests in Libya.

France went in first, guns-a-blazing, after the Canadian premier flew to France for an urgent meeting with Sarkozy. Both France/Canada are desparate to protect their licence monopolies to prospect and mine for uranium, after the post-coup Niger government broke Areva's 40 year monopoly on uranium mining and extraction in Niger. This, along with recent kidnappings by armed militia (of a Canadian diplomat) have caused Areva and related engineering operations in Niger to become untenable. In 2007, Areva signed a deal with Gaddafi to build a nuclear power station in Libya.

Resolution 1973 was focused on the protection of civilians and the provision of a no-fly zone. Both armed rebels and pro-Gaddafi forces are slaughtering sub-Saharan African migrants, who are attempting to flee Libya. 5,000 arrived in Niger last week. Thousands more are trying to get into Niger, or stranded in Sabha. 58,000 Egyptians, Algerians and Tunisians have already fled the country, with UNCHR help. Thousands more Libyan CIVILIANS are internally displaced, holed up in homes, schools and university halls in Ajdabiyah, Derna, and Tobruk. In total, nearly half a million civilians have fled Libya so far.

A no-fly zone ought to mean that there is no aerial bombing by a coalition of Western-backed forces and a focus only on humanitarian aid to civilians.
To describe coalition bombing as 'humanitarian' is some kind of twisted doublespeak. Humanitarian aid, rather than arms should be a priority.

 

[Idris2002]

This sounds most peculiar:

13:08 01 APR 2011

(AGI) Ajdabiya - Troops loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and pro-democracy rebels are fighting for control of Marsa el-Brega, a strategic town on the road to Benghazi. There were few details of the fighting in reports from journalists at Ajdabiya, about 80 east of Marsa el-Brega, as rebel fighters were keeping reporters and civilians from leaving the town or going to the front lines. . .

http://www.agi.it/english-version/w...i_troops_and_rebels_battle_for_marsa_el_brega

 

[Divisive Cotton]

Why does that sound peculiar? All journalists do is report how shit they are Strategically, it's good idea to keep them away from the frontlines

 

[Idris2002]

Ed Moloney has some interesting things to say about the CIA's longterm interest in Libya:

http://thebrokenelbow.com/2011/03/31/gaddafi-and-the-cia-a-short-history/

 

[weltweit]

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. Are you really so naive to believe the coalition has no interest in Libya's resources?

It is more than a hunch that the coalition's ''humanitarian'' mission is less about protecting civilians and more about protecting western companies' business interests in Libya.

France went in first, guns-a-blazing, after the Canadian premier flew to France for an urgent meeting with Sarkozy. Both France/Canada are desparate to protect their licence monopolies to prospect and mine for uranium, after the post-coup Niger government broke Areva's 40 year monopoly on uranium mining and extraction in Niger. This, along with recent kidnappings by armed militia (of a Canadian diplomat) have caused Areva and related engineering operations in Niger to become untenable. In 2007, Areva signed a deal with Gaddafi to build a nuclear power station in Libya.

Resolution 1973 was focused on the protection of civilians and the provision of a no-fly zone. Both armed rebels and pro-Gaddafi forces are slaughtering sub-Saharan African migrants, who are attempting to flee Libya. 5,000 arrived in Niger last week. Thousands more are trying to get into Niger, or stranded in Sabha. 58,000 Egyptians, Algerians and Tunisians have already fled the country, with UNCHR help. Thousands more Libyan CIVILIANS are internally displaced, holed up in homes, schools and university halls in Ajdabiyah, Derna, and Tobruk. In total, nearly half a million civilians have fled Libya so far.

A no-fly zone ought to mean that there is no aerial bombing by a coalition of Western-backed forces and a focus only on humanitarian aid to civilians.
To describe coalition bombing as 'humanitarian' is some kind of twisted doublespeak. Humanitarian aid, rather than arms should be a priority.

It seems to me that France and Canada's commercial interests in Libya, which you mention, would have best been served had Gaddafi simply rolled up the rebels and re-asserted his power over the country. They, France and Canada had, like BP, been able to do deals with Gaddafi, the continuing rule of Gaddafi would continue this.

Don't forget that at the time Resolution 1973 was agreed, the rebels were on the verge of complete defeat at the hands of Gaddafi's forces. It was not clear then and it is not clear now that they have anything like the capability to defeat Gaddafi's forces and the U.N. resolution limits the aid that can be given to them.

1973 does not say anything about taking the sides of the rebels, indeed Anders Fogh Rasmussen is even clearer than Cameron, Clinton and Sarkozy that the resolution is about defending civilians rather than taking the side of the rebels or arming them.

I don't see how siding with a force that is close to defeat and looks incapable of victory can be in the interests of France, Canada or whoever, the defence of Benghazi is a much more persuasive argument.

 

[teqniq]

Thanks for the info Luther, and for the link Idris. I wondered why France was so keen to get in there, assumed there must be some business interest or similar, and quelle surprise!

@weltweit it could easily be a case of thinking they could get a better deal by backing new management or 'backing the wrong horse' as info on the ground was and still is but to a much lesser degree not completely reliable.

 

[Spion]

It seems to me that France and Canada's commercial interests in Libya, which you mention, would have best been served had Gaddafi simply rolled up the rebels and re-asserted his power over the country. They, France and Canada had, like BP, been able to do deals with Gaddafi, the continuing rule of Gaddafi would continue this.

Don't forget that at the time Resolution 1973 was agreed, the rebels were on the verge of complete defeat at the hands of Gaddafi's forces. It was not clear then and it is not clear now that they have anything like the capability to defeat Gaddafi's forces and the U.N. resolution limits the aid that can be given to them.

1973 does not say anything about taking the sides of the rebels, indeed Anders Fogh Rasmussen is even clearer than Cameron, Clinton and Sarkozy that the resolution is about defending civilians rather than taking the side of the rebels or arming them.

I don't see how siding with a force that is close to defeat and looks incapable of victory can be in the interests of France, Canada or whoever, the defence of Benghazi is a much more persuasive argument.

Don't forget, early on it looked like Gadafi was done for. He had diplomats defecting left, right and centre, the country was split in two and western powers were leaping to recognise the rebels. A lot of people put big bets on early in all this, and just because it's not going as they wished doesn't mean the same basic interests are not at play here. It's really quite amusing.

 

[weltweit]

Don't forget, early on it looked like Gadafi was done for. He had diplomats defecting left, right and centre, the country was split in two and western powers were leaping to recognise the rebels. A lot of people put big bets on early in all this, and just because it's not going as they wished doesn't mean the same basic interests are not at play here. It's really quite amusing.

You make a good point, certainly at the very beginning many thought that Gaddafi might just go from the weight of the protests, but by the time of resolution 1973 it was pretty desperate with him at the very gates of Benghazi. Perhaps France et al did miscalculate, it would not be the first time.

 

[elbows]

Go on then, tell me what you think the three players in Libya are up to.

Im not answering those questions, they are too narrow and besides I have repeatedly posted at length about my numerous concerns with all the assumptions and certainties that people have floated at various points since this stuff began, and especially recently.

There are numerous factors at work here, people have been very good at spotting some but probably make the mistake of trying to choose just one or two to form into a simple version of events. When the dust settles, it may be possible to determine that the main factors were indeed just a few of the most obvious and straightforward ones. Or we may discover that theres a whole other level of stuff that been going on in Libya and we didnt actually know the half of it as events unfolded.

But to try to give you at least one answer that isnt so vague, I've said all along that Libya's oil made it far more likely that there would be intervention, and that many powers would not think they could afford to let things drag on for a very long time, because would not want Libyas oil exports be diminished for very long or massive instability to get in the way of exploitation of new oil reserves. This does not mean that other factors are utterly irrelevant, even humanitarian ones, simply that oil makes a difference, changes the equation, the balance of decision making etc.

 

[weltweit]

Keeping an eye on civilian casualties:

1) Injury to locals when US military moved to recover pilots of crashed aircraft and locals were apparently fired upon by rescue helicopter.

2) Air strike on convoy of Gaddafi vehicles when they were passing through a village, one truck and trailer was carrying amunition and in its explosion civilians were killed.

3) Convoy of rebel vehicles travelling down coast road, they fired an AA gun into the air and were engaged by an A10 which destroyed the convoy.

 

[phildwyer]

Keeping an eye on civilian casualties

Very worthy, but let´s not forget that the moral distinction between civilians and combatants is hard to sustain when conscripts are involved.

 

[Deareg]

Keeping an eye on civilian casualties:



3) Convoy of rebel vehicles travelling down coast road, they fired an AA gun into the air and were engaged by an A10 which destroyed the convoy.

If they were part of the volunteer rebel forces, then how do they count as civilians? especially as Gaddafy's army contain many conscripts.