Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

[don]

Libya all about oil, or central banking?
By Ellen Brown

Several writers have noted the odd fact that the Libyan rebels took time out from their rebellion in March to create their own central bank - this before they even had a government. Robert Wenzel wrote in the Economic Policy Journal:

I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising. This suggests we have a bit more than a rag tag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences.

Alex Newman wrote in the New American:

In a statement released last week, the rebels reported on the results of a meeting held on March 19. Among other things, the supposed rag-tag revolutionaries announced the "[d]esignation of the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and appointment of a Governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi."

Newman quoted CNBC senior editor John Carney, who asked, "Is this the first time a revolutionary group has created a central bank while it is still in the midst of fighting the entrenched political power? It certainly seems to indicate how extraordinarily powerful central bankers have become in our era."

Another anomaly involves the official justification for taking up arms against Libya. Supposedly it's about human rights violations, but the evidence is contradictory. According to an article on the Fox News website on February 28:

As the United Nations works feverishly to condemn Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi for cracking down on protesters, the body's Human Rights Council is poised to adopt a report chock-full of praise for Libya's human rights record.

The review commends Libya for improving educational opportunities, for making human rights a "priority" and for bettering its "constitutional" framework. Several countries, including Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia but also Canada, give Libya positive marks for the legal protections afforded to its citizens - who are now revolting against the regime and facing bloody reprisal.

Whatever might be said of Gaddafi's personal crimes, the Libyan people seem to be thriving. A delegation of medical professionals from Russia, Ukraine and Belarus wrote in an appeal to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin that after becoming acquainted with Libyan life, it was their view that in few nations did people live in such comfort:

[Libyans] are entitled to free treatment, and their hospitals provide the best in the world of medical equipment. Education in Libya is free, capable young people have the opportunity to study abroad at government expense. When marrying, young couples receive 60,000 Libyan dinars (about 50,000 US dollars) of financial assistance. Non-interest state loans, and as practice shows, undated. Due to government subsidies the price of cars is much lower than in Europe, and they are affordable for every family. Gasoline and bread cost a penny, no taxes for those who are engaged in agriculture. The Libyan people are quiet and peaceful, are not inclined to drink, and are very religious.

They maintained that the international community had been misinformed about the struggle against the regime. "Tell us," they said, "who would not like such a regime?"

Even if that is just propaganda, there is no denying at least one very popular achievement of the Libyan government: it brought water to the desert by building the largest and most expensive irrigation project in history, the US$33 billion GMMR (Great Man-Made River) project. Even more than oil, water is crucial to life in Libya.

The GMMR provides 70% of the population with water for drinking and irrigation, pumping it from Libya's vast underground Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System in the south to populated coastal areas 4,000 kilometers to the north. The Libyan government has done at least some things right.

Another explanation for the assault on Libya is that it is "all about oil", but that theory too is problematic. As noted in the National Journal, the country produces only about 2% of the world's oil. Saudi Arabia alone has enough spare capacity to make up for any lost production if Libyan oil were to disappear from the market. And if it's all about oil, why the rush to set up a new central bank?

Another provocative bit of data circulating on the Net is a 2007 "Democracy Now" interview of US General Wesley Clark (Ret). In it he says that about 10 days after September 11, 2001, he was told by a general that the decision had been made to go to war with Iraq. Clark was surprised and asked why. "I don't know!" was the response. "I guess they don't know what else to do!" Later, the same general said they planned to take out seven countries in five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.

What do these seven countries have in common? In the context of banking, one that sticks out is that none of them is listed among the 56 member banks of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). That evidently puts them outside the long regulatory arm of the central bankers' central bank in Switzerland.

The most renegade of the lot could be Libya and Iraq, the two that have actually been attacked. Kenneth Schortgen Jr, writing on Examiner.com, noted that "[s]ix months before the US moved into Iraq to take down Saddam Hussein, the oil nation had made the move to accept euros instead of dollars for oil, and this became a threat to the global dominance of the dollar as the reserve currency, and its dominion as the petrodollar."

According to a Russian article titled "Bombing of Libya - Punishment for Ghaddafi for His Attempt to Refuse US Dollar", Gaddafi made a similarly bold move: he initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the euro, and called on Arab and African nations to use a new currency instead, the gold dinar. Gaddafi suggested establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency.

During the past year, the idea was approved by many Arab countries and most African countries. The only opponents were the Republic of South Africa and the head of the League of Arab States. The initiative was viewed negatively by the USA and the European Union, with French President Nicolas Sarkozy calling Libya a threat to the financial security of mankind; but Gaddafi was not swayed and continued his push for the creation of a united Africa.

And that brings us back to the puzzle of the Libyan central bank. In an article posted on the Market Oracle, Eric Encina observed:

One seldom mentioned fact by western politicians and media pundits: the Central Bank of Libya is 100% State Owned ... Currently, the Libyan government creates its own money, the Libyan Dinar, through the facilities of its own central bank. Few can argue that Libya is a sovereign nation with its own great resources, able to sustain its own economic destiny. One major problem for globalist banking cartels is that in order to do business with Libya, they must go through the Libyan Central Bank and its national currency, a place where they have absolutely zero dominion or power-broking ability. Hence, taking down the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) may not appear in the speeches of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy but this is certainly at the top of the globalist agenda for absorbing Libya into its hive of compliant nations.

Libya not only has oil. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), its central bank has nearly 144 tonnes of gold in its vaults. With that sort of asset base, who needs the BIS, the IMF and their rules?

All of which prompts a closer look at the BIS rules and their effect on local economies. An article on the BIS website states that central banks in the Central Bank Governance Network are supposed to have as their single or primary objective "to preserve price stability".

They are to be kept independent from government to make sure that political considerations don't interfere with this mandate. "Price stability" means maintaining a stable money supply, even if that means burdening the people with heavy foreign debts. Central banks are discouraged from increasing the money supply by printing money and using it for the benefit of the state, either directly or as loans.

In a 2002 article in Asia Times Online titled "The BIS vs national banks" Henry Liu maintained:

BIS regulations serve only the single purpose of strengthening the international private banking system, even at the peril of national economies. The BIS does to national banking systems what the IMF has done to national monetary regimes. National economies under financial globalization no longer serve national interests.

... FDI [foreign direct investment] denominated in foreign currencies, mostly dollars, has condemned many national economies into unbalanced development toward export, merely to make dollar-denominated interest payments to FDI, with little net benefit to the domestic economies.

He added, "Applying the State Theory of Money, any government can fund with its own currency all its domestic developmental needs to maintain full employment without inflation." The "state theory of money" refers to money created by governments rather than private banks.

The presumption of the rule against borrowing from the government's own central bank is that this will be inflationary, while borrowing existing money from foreign banks or the IMF will not. But all banks actually create the money they lend on their books, whether publicly owned or privately owned. Most new money today comes from bank loans. Borrowing it from the government's own central bank has the advantage that the loan is effectively interest-free. Eliminating interest has been shown to reduce the cost of public projects by an average of 50%.

And that appears to be how the Libyan system works. According to Wikipedia, the functions of the Central Bank of Libya include "issuing and regulating banknotes and coins in Libya" and "managing and issuing all state loans". Libya's wholly state-owned bank can and does issue the national currency and lend it for state purposes.

That would explain where Libya gets the money to provide free education and medical care, and to issue each young couple $50,000 in interest-free state loans. It would also explain where the country found the $33 billion to build the Great Man-Made River project. Libyans are worried that North Atlantic Treaty Organization-led air strikes are coming perilously close to this pipeline, threatening another humanitarian disaster.

So is this new war all about oil or all about banking? Maybe both - and water as well. With energy, water, and ample credit to develop the infrastructure to access them, a nation can be free of the grip of foreign creditors. And that may be the real threat of Libya: it could show the world what is possible.

Most countries don't have oil, but new technologies are being developed that could make non-oil-producing nations energy-independent, particularly if infrastructure costs are halved by borrowing from the nation's own publicly owned bank. Energy independence would free governments from the web of the international bankers, and of the need to shift production from domestic to foreign markets to service the loans.

If the Gaddafi government goes down, it will be interesting to watch whether the new central bank joins the BIS, whether the nationalized oil industry gets sold off to investors, and whether education and healthcare continue to be free.

Ellen Brown is an attorney and president of the Public Banking Institute, http://PublicBankingInstitute.org.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MD14Ak02.html

[Dave Stratman]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

That is indeed very interesting. It reminds me of a comment Noam Chomsky made in the '80s when somebody asked him why the US would care if such a tiny and insignificant state as Nicaragua went independent. Chomsky replied that the great danger for the US ruling elite was the "demonstration effect." If a little place like Nicaragua can get free of teh Colossus of the North, why can't we?

[don]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

Under Saddam Iraq had women engineers, architects, professors, etc. After the sanctions and wars it was commonplace to pitch the propaganda that the burqa-enslaved women of Iraq could be enlightened by American women giving seminars on social liberation. From Day 1 Muqtada al-Sadr, the militant slum-based cleric, was demonized. He's the most nationalistic leader in Iraq, the last guy the US and its Euro allies want to see. The typical strongman, Saddam, went bad when he went too nationalistic. When you're a neoliberal stooge, never put your country first. It could cost you plenty.

[don]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

and curiouser . . .

Countries Agree to Try to Transfer Some of Qaddafi’s Assets to Libyan Rebels

By CLIFFORD KRAUSS and ROD NORDLAND

DOHA, Qatar — NATO, Arab and African ministers agreed Wednesday “to work urgently” with the Libyan rebel leadership to set up a mechanism by which some frozen assets belonging to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi and his family might be transferred to the rebel cause.

The agreement came at the first meeting among representatives of the NATO-led coalition, regional leaders and the rebels in a closed-door conference here that was billed as the beginning of a continuing dialogue. There is growing friction among the allied countries and the rebels themselves over how much military force to apply on the Qaddafi government.

But those divisions were set aside — for the moment, at least.

“This is the money of the Libyans, not of Colonel Qaddafi,” said Italy’s foreign minister, Franco Frattini, who added that the assistance would be aimed “at humanitarian and daily needs.”

He said, “People need food, or they need to pay salaries to workers.”
Rebel leaders in Benghazi received the news as a sign that the international community was prepared to sell them weapons.

“We have made a request to those friendly nations and those who have made their official recognition, and we are in the final stages of requesting military equipment,” said Abdul Hafidh Ghoga, a member of the rebels’ governing body, the Transitional National Council, and its spokesman.

“I don’t think there’s going to be any problem about getting military equipment in,” Mr. Ghoga said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/wo...gewanted=print

[Starving Steve]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

Libya supports human rights????????????? May I remind everyone that Libya gave refuge (and cheers) for the bomber of Pan Am Flight 103, the plane that crashed into Lockerbie, Scotland.

A central bank with new ideas??????????? Yes, Islamic banking? Instead of compound-interest, the lender takes a share of the borrower's home or business.

I think the dead-beats in the U.S. wouldn't even know what hit them with Islamic banking, and if they would complain and threaten the lender, they might find themselves in an Islamic court and headed for the gallows. Miss a payment or two to the lender, and the bank takes over a larger percentage of the home or business. When the bank owns the entire venture, the dead-beat is OUT. No free rides for dead-beats in Libya, or am I mistaken? Would the dead-beat trash the house or venture property, the Islamic court would deal justice to the dead-beat.

Or am I wrong? Would there be a free ride for dead-beats under Islamic Law? And if there would be a free ride for dead-beats, why would anyone lend to them? Again, I am confused. Let's read about this thousand (plus) year old idea of Islamic banking and how great it would be in the new Libya of the rebels, especially with $110 per barrel oil.

[oddlots]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

I remember a great Martin Buber quote to the effect that, if a movement calls on you to sacrifice your most sacred beliefs to the cause of defending them then you've arrived precisely nowhere. (It was way better than that, but can't, for the life of, me find it.)

It comes to mind when I read commentary like this about Libya. I read a piece by Pepe Escobar recently that was similarly off kilter to my mind. He made the point that the threat of a massacre in Benghazi was overplayed. Really? The countries unassailable leader a) calls for a "house to house, alley to alley" cleansing of people he proclaims to be rats b) has in the the recent past carried out exactly this sort of operation in Tripoli itself (with reportedly 20k young men "detained" or - perhaps disappeared - I'm sure the figure is smaller, but who really knows) c) then carries out a viscious and indiscriminate siege against Misurata and other cities and Pepe Escobar thinks - after all this has occurred (not to mention Gadaffi's history) - that Benghazi was a doubtful outcome?

Squint a little harder Pepe.

What makes Libya different from say another more obviously neo-colonial escapade such as Iraq (As Rumsfeld said while the rubble of 911 was still smoldering: "There are no good targets in Afghanistan") - is that there is a viable opposition that - most importantly - is willing, in an almost suicidally brave manner, to do the fighting. That makes all the difference to me. Was there such a viable opposition in Iraq that rose up "at a time and place of it's choosing? No That makes all the difference to me. (And please don't tell me that only our own western air forces count on the battlefield. It's true but misses the point: eventually it has to get very in your face and personal and I haven't seen any shirking of this responsibility at all. Just a lack of means.)

Maybe it's empire fatigue (maybe?), or maybe I'm completely wrong, but I really think you guys have lost the thread here.

[don]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

Commentary No. 303, Apr. 15, 2011

"The Middle East: Allies in Disarray"

For the last fifty years, United States policy in the Middle East has been built around its very close links with three countries: Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. In 2011, it is at odds with all three, and in very fundamental ways. It is also in public discord with Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China, and Brazil over its current policies in the region. It seems almost no one agrees with or follows the lead of the United States. One can hear the agonizing frustration of the president, the State Department, the Pentagon, and the CIA, all of whom see a situation careening out of control.

Why the United States has created such an incredibly close alliance with Israel is a matter of much debate. But it is clear that for many years the relationship has been getting ever tighter, and more and more on Israeli terms. Israel has been able to count on financial and military aid and the never-failing veto of the United States in the U.N. Security Council.

What has happened now is that both Israeli politicians and its U.S. base of support have moved steadily rightwards. Israel is holding on tight to two things: eternal delays on serious negotiations with Palestine and the hope that someone will bomb the Iranians. Obama has been moving in the other direction, at least as much as U.S. internal politics will let him. The tensions are high and Netanyahu is praying, if he does pray, for a Republican presidential victory in 2012. The crisis point may however come before that when the U.N. General Assembly votes to recognize Palestine as a member state. The United States will find itself in the losing position of fighting against this.

Saudi Arabia has had a cozy relationship with Washington ever since Pres. Franklin Roosevelt met with King Abdul Aziz in 1943. Between them, they were able to control the politics of oil worldwide. They collaborated in military matters and the United States counted on the Saudis to hold other Arab regimes in check. But today the Saudi regime feels highly threatened by the second Arab revolt and is very upset by the willingness of the United States to sanction the dethroning of Mubarak by his military as well as by U.S. critiques, however mild, of Saudi intervention in Bahrain. The priorities of the two countries are now quite different.

In the era of the Cold War, when the United States regarded India as far too close to the Soviet Union, Pakistan obtained the full backing of the United States (and China), whatever its regime. They worked together to aid the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and force the withdrawal of Soviet troops. They presumably were working together to stem the growth of al-Qaeda. Two things have changed. In a post-Cold War era, the United States has been developing much warmer relations with India, to the frustration of Pakistan. And Pakistan and the United States are in strong disagreement about how to handle the ever-growing strength of both al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

One of the principal objectives of U.S. foreign policy since the collapse of the Soviet Union has been to keep western European countries from developing autonomous policies. But today, the three major countries - Great Britain, France, and Germany - are all doing that. Neither the tough line of George W. Bush nor the softer diplomacy of Barack Obama seems to have slowed that down. The fact that France and Great Britain are now asking the United States to take a more active lead on fighting Gaddafi and Germany is saying just about the opposite is less important than the fact that all three are saying these things very loudly and strongly.

Russia, China, and Brazil are all playing their cards carefully in terms of their relations with the United States. All three oppose U.S. positions on just about everything these days. They may not go all the way (such as using vetoes in the Security Council) because the United States still has claws it can use. But they are certainly not cooperating. The fiasco of Obama's recent trip to Brazil, where he thought he could get a new approach from President Dilma Rousseff - but he couldn't - shows how little clout the United States has at present.

Finally, U.S. internal politics have changed. The bipartisan foreign policy has slipped into historical memory. Now, when the United States goes to war as in Libya, public opinion polls show only about 50% support in the general population. And politicians of both parties attack Obama for being either too hawkish or too dovish. They are all waiting to pounce on him for any reversal. What this may do is to force him to escalate U.S. involvement all over the place and thereby exacerbate the negative reaction of all the one-time allies.

Madeleine Albright famously called the United States the "indispensable nation." It is still the giant on the world scene. But it is a lumbering giant, uncertain of where it is going or how to get there. The measure of U.S. decline is the degree to which its erstwhile closest allies are ready both to defy its wishes and to say so publicly. The measure of U.S. decline is the degree to which it does not feel able to state publicly what it is doing, and to insist that all is really under control. The United States actually had to cough up a very large sum of money to arrange the release from prison of a CIA agent in Pakistan.

The consequences of all this? Much more global anarchy. Who will profit from all of this? That, at the moment, is a very open question.

by Immanuel Wallerstein

[c1ue]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

What makes Libya different from say another more obviously neo-colonial escapade such as Iraq (As Rumsfeld said while the rubble of 911 was still smoldering: "There are no good targets in Afghanistan") - is that there is a viable opposition that - most importantly - is willing, in an almost suicidally brave manner, to do the fighting.

For suicidally brave fighters supposedly outnumbered and outgunned, these Libyan 'freedom fighters' sure don't seem to take many casualties. Daily casualty reports number in the dozen, or maybe a few dozen.

It is also amusing how the 'suicidally brave freedom fighters' seem to go nowhere unless there's direct NATO or US intervention.

Again, not that Qaddafi is some wonderful human being, because he ain't. But just because someone is fighting Qaddafi doesn't automatically mean they are in turn the wonderful human beings.

We've already seen that with Afghanistan and the 'heroic freedom fighters of the Mujahideen' (Al Qaeda 1985).

[don]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

What's Really Going on in Libya?

By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

It looks as though eastern Libya will slide into the Mediterranean under the sheer weight of western journalists assembled in Benghazi and Misrata. A tsunami of breathless reports suggests that Misrata is enduring travails not far short of the siege of Leningrad in World War 2. The reports have been seized on by Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy to raise the ante on Mission Odyssey Dawn. In their joint newspaper column published both sides of the Atlantic they now say that to leave Gaddafi in power would be an "unconscionable betrayal" and speak of Misrata as enduring “a medieval siege.” Not yet, surely. A medieval siege was something that usually lasted at least a year, in which the city’s inhabitants were reduced to eating rats, then each other, and the besiegers all succumbed to plague.

Maybe it will turn out that way, with reporters eying each other from a gastronomic perspective and wiring Ferran Adria, seeking recipes for preparing Haunch of Hack sous vide. "So long as Gaddafi is in power, Nato and its coalition partners must maintain their operations so that civilians remain protected and the pressure on the regime builds," write the three leaders. This is not Mission Creep but, once again, Mission Leap, way beyond the UN mandate.

On closer inspection, the reports suggest something less than a medieval siege or Leningrad. Reuter’s man in Misrata could only come up with this: “A local doctor told Al Jazeera at least eight people died and seven others were wounded in the second day of intense bombardment of Misrata, a lone rebel bastion in western Libya.” The UK Independent’s Kim Sengupta did better: “The attacks started early in the morning as the residents of this besieged and battered city were starting their hours of queuing for bread…. Even by the grim standards of Misrata, the most violent battleground of this savage civil war, what happened yesterday was a cause of deep shock….At least 16 people died, and 29 were injured, almost all of them civilians – including a mother and her two young daughters.”

It’s always a cause for dismay that any civilians die in such conflicts but again, 16 fatalities fall well short of medieval catastrophe. Sengupta noted that NATO is simultaneously bombing Tripoli, though no journalists seemed to be available to report what sort of damage or casualties had been inflicted. Meanwhile the hated leader appeared to have no qualms in touring the city in an open jeep.

It seems that the rebels might actually be under the overall supervision of the international banking industry, rather than the oil majors. On March 19 they announced the “[d]esignation of the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and appointment of a Governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi.’”

CNBC senior editor John Carneyasked, “Is this the first time a revolutionary group has created a central bank while it is still in the midst of fighting the entrenched political power? It certainly seems to indicate how extraordinarily powerful central bankers have become in our era.”

Ellen Brown, author of the terrific Web of Debt: the Shocking Truth About Our Money System and How We Can Break Free, wrote recently about the rebels’ sophisticated financial operations in the following terms:

“According to a Russian article titled “Bombing of Lybia – Punishment for Ghaddafi for His Attempt to Refuse US Dollar,” Gadaffi made a similarly bold move: he initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the euro, and called on Arab and African nations to use a new currency instead, the gold dinar. Gadaffi suggested establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency. During the past year, the idea was approved by many Arab countries and most African countries. The only opponents were the Republic of South Africa and the head of the League of Arab States. The initiative was viewed negatively by the USA and the European Union, with French president Nicolas Sarkozy calling Libya a threat to the financial security of mankind; but Gaddafi was not swayed and continued his push for the creation of a united Africa.

“And that brings us back to the puzzle of the Libyan central bank. In an article posted on the Market Oracle, Eric Encina observed: ‘One seldom mentioned fact by western politicians and media pundits: the Central Bank of Libya is 100% State Owned. . . . Currently, the Libyan government creates its own money, the Libyan Dinar, through the facilities of its own central bank. Few can argue that Libya is a sovereign nation with its own great resources, able to sustain its own economic destiny. One major problem for globalist banking cartels is that in order to do business with Libya, they must go through the Libyan Central Bank and its national currency, a place where they have absolutely zero dominion or power-broking ability. Hence, taking down the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) may not appear in the speeches of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy but this is certainly at the top of the globalist agenda for absorbing Libya into its hive of compliant nations.’”

I’d really like to see an objective account of Qaddafi’s allocation of oil revenues versus the US’s, in terms of social improvement. ()

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn04152011.html

[flintlock]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

For suicidally brave fighters supposedly outnumbered and outgunned, these Libyan 'freedom fighters' sure don't seem to take many casualties. Daily casualty reports number in the dozen, or maybe a few dozen.

It is also amusing how the 'suicidally brave freedom fighters' seem to go nowhere unless there's direct NATO or US intervention.

Again, not that Qaddafi is some wonderful human being, because he ain't. But just because someone is fighting Qaddafi doesn't automatically mean they are in turn the wonderful human beings.

We've already seen that with Afghanistan and the 'heroic freedom fighters of the Mujahideen' (Al Qaeda 1985).

x2!

[c1ue]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

Even more amusing: the UN is now calling for a ceasefire.

This ought to be interesting - since the 'freedom fighters' are unwilling to have a ceasefire, just who exactly is in charge?

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/...120054294.html

The United Nations is calling for an immediate cease-fire in Libya as recent heavy fighting left more than a dozen dead in the western part of the country.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and his top humanitarian envoy Valerie Amos expressed deep concern over the magnitude of the conflict as well as its toll on civilians.

Shelling and sniper fire by forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi killed 17 people in the western city of Misrata Sunday, while rocket and artillery attacks on the eastern town of Ajdabiya sent rebel fighters and civilians fleeing.

In Misrata, at least 47 people also were wounded in the fighting, during which Gadhafi's forces fired on a makeshift trauma center.

The city has been under government siege for the last seven weeks, leading to a growing humanitarian crisis.

U.N. and Libyan officials say they reached an an agreement Sunday to allow aid workers safe passage to Misrata. Ban says the world body, which is already providing aid in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, will also set up a humanitarian presence in the capital, Tripoli.

Sunday marked one month since the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution authorizing an international air campaign to protect civilians in Libya. In London, British Prime Minister David Cameron said Britain will not send occupying ground forces into the North African country.

The NATO alliance has carried out airstrikes against loyalist forces in Libya to enforce the U.N.-authorized "no fly" zone protecting civilians from attack by Gadhafi's troops.

[don]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

There's been rumors of an ammo shortage with NATO/"Rebels".

What next.

[oddlots]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

For suicidally brave fighters supposedly outnumbered and outgunned, these Libyan 'freedom fighters' sure don't seem to take many casualties. Daily casualty reports number in the dozen, or maybe a few dozen.
It is also amusing how the 'suicidally brave freedom fighters' seem to go nowhere unless there's direct NATO or US intervention.
Again, not that Qaddafi is some wonderful human being, because he ain't. But just because someone is fighting Qaddafi doesn't automatically mean they are in turn the wonderful human beings.
We've already seen that with Afghanistan and the 'heroic freedom fighters of the Mujahideen' (Al Qaeda 1985).

I've seen despairing ex-Libyan army commanders interviewed on the battlefield describe the rebels as such while watching them careen around ineffectively. I never said they were effective, just that they are there or, more importantly, were there when the decision to aid them and the movement was taken (and that this makes the situation different in an important way.) Do you disagree?

It is also amusing how the 'suicidally brave freedom fighters' seem to go nowhere unless there's direct NATO or US intervention.

Not to be pious but amusing seems a stretch. Re. not going anywhere, that's not strictly true at least over the whole period of the crisis. The rebels "took" or "took over" towns in the west, presumably before Gadaffi's machine really got rolling. That they subsequently lost them so quickly is evidence that they are (or were) "outgunned" - obviously - and, if they were to remain a factor or become a factor really, would require support. This was the original argument for intervention as far as I can tell. It seems strange to be claiming that they are now both a) an insignificant "fig leaf" for a NATO-led war and b) suspiciously, not dying in enough numbers to validate the intervention. Which is it?

Again, not that Qaddafi is some wonderful human being, because he ain't. But just because someone is fighting Qaddafi doesn't automatically mean they are in turn the wonderful human beings.

I concede that absolutely, but would also suggest that both sides are not thereby "automatically" equivalent. My argument stands or falls on the question of whether one can distinguish morally between the two sides. From what I've read and seen the rebel government and army appears to be worthy of support. (I could be wrong. Frankly I can easily see myself having a "Forget it Jack, it's chinatown" moment here at some point over my support (cue trumpets) for the intervention.) But what I'm seeing here is an assumption of equivalence. What is your argument for this?

[oddlots]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

Ugh. That is a very damning article. Thanks for posting it.

[c1ue]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

I've seen despairing ex-Libyan army commanders interviewed on the battlefield describe the rebels as such while watching them careen around ineffectively. I never said they were effective, just that they are there or, more importantly, were there when the decision to aid them and the movement was taken (and that this makes the situation different in an important way.) Do you disagree?

That there are some fighters is without question.

However, I've seen now numerous mentions that the actual number of fighters on any given day number in the single digit thousands. Even for a small nation of only 6.5 million people, this doesn't seem characteristic of a 'popular' movement.

Not to be pious but amusing seems a stretch. Re. not going anywhere, that's not strictly true at least over the whole period of the crisis. The rebels "took" or "took over" towns in the west, presumably before Gadaffi's machine really got rolling. That they subsequently lost them so quickly is evidence that they are (or were) "outgunned" - obviously - and, if they were to remain a factor or become a factor really, would require support. This was the original argument for intervention as far as I can tell. It seems strange to be claiming that they are now both a) an insignificant "fig leaf" for a NATO-led war and b) suspiciously, not dying in enough numbers to validate the intervention. Which is it?

Given that the 'rebellion' was kicked off by one or two Libyan army units defecting, it isn't all that surprising that 'gains' were made at the beginning. My question is: at what point does a failed army coup end, and a 'popular revolution' begin? Or vice versa?

And more importantly, why exactly were said 'popular freedom fighters' unable to capitalize on gains when literally thousands of missiles and hundreds of air strike sorties were flown?

Are you debating that Libya 'loyalists' are better equipped than the combination of NATO airpower and 'freedom fighters'? It just seems strange that such fanatic freedom lovers are unable and/or unwilling to fight and win, as opposed to buzz around on jeeps.

For that matter, how many civilians have been killed by NATO airstrikes and 'freedom fighters' liberating towns?

My argument stands or falls on the question of whether one can distinguish morally between the two sides.

You can distinguish? That's funny because NATO can't seem to; they just want Qaddafi out. And now that getting Qaddafi out seems difficult/impossible, they want a cease fire. Even as 3 months ago the heads of state of France, the US, the UK, the IMF, the UN and Italy were praising Qaddafi:





http://warincontext.org/2011/02/25/b...rming-gaddafi/

...

Britain sold Libya about 40 million pounds ($55 million) worth of military and paramilitary equipment in the year ending Sept. 30, 2010, according to Foreign Office statistics. Among the items: sniper rifles, bulletproof vehicles, crowd control ammunition, and tear gas.


“What did the Foreign Office think Colonel Gadhafi meant to do with sniper rifles and tear gas grenades — go mole hunting?” asked Britain’s Guardian newspaper.


Although Britain’s current government led by David Cameron has revoked dozens of export licenses to Libya in the wake of the Libyan violence, many say the very weapons and equipment Britain has sold to Libya are being used against the country’s people.


Britain’s elite Special Air Service, or SAS, also participated in recent training for Libyan soldiers in counterterrorism and surveillance. Robin Horsfall, a former SAS soldier, said at the time that the training was a mistake: “People will die as a result of this decision,” he warned.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/wo...104/story.html

The UN Human Rights Council is set to adopt a major report hailing Libya's human rights record -- despite moving to suspend the Arab country's council membership amid an international outcry over attacks on civilians.
The report shows countries applauding and commending Libya as they note "with appreciation the country's commitment to upholding human rights on the ground."
Even Canada "welcomed improvements" Libya made "in its respect for human rights," according to the report, which is scheduled for a vote before the Geneva-based 47-member council March 18. But the Canadian government also made several critically framed recommendations to the Gadhafi regime, including one calling for reinforced measures aimed at fully investigating torture claims.
The 23-page report was compiled as part of the council's "Universal Periodic Review" -- a process the UN bills as a rigorous scrutiny of the human rights records of each UN member state every four years.

So apparently morality isn't a big factor here.