Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PC Roberts Interviewed on Libya

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • PC Roberts Interviewed on Libya

    Press TV has interviewed Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant secretary of US Treasury from Panama City, who gives his insight on the revolution in Libya and why US President Barack Obama needs to overthrow Qaddafi when no other US presidents did.

    Press TV: Russia has criticized NATO for going far beyond its UN mandate. In other news a joint Op Ed is going to be written by Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy who have said that “leaving Qaddafi in power would be an unconscionable betrayal to the Libyan people”.

    We do know that the mandate does not call for regime change; the Obama administration has been saying they are not in there for regime change; but things seem a little different now don't they?

    Roberts: Yes they do. First of all, notice that the protests in Libya are different from the ones in Egypt or Yemen or Bahrain or Tunisia and the difference is that this is an armed rebellion.

    There are more differences: another is that these protests originated in the eastern part of Libya where the oil is - they did not originate in the capital city. And we have heard from the beginning credible reports that the CIA is involved in the protests, and there have been a large number of press reports that the CIA has sent back to Libya its Libyan asset to head up the Libyan rebellion.

    In my opinion, what this is about is to eliminate China from the Mediterranean. China has extensive energy investments and construction investments in Libya. They are looking to Africa as a future energy source.

    The US is countering this by organizing the United States African Command (USAC), which Qaddafi refused to join. So that's the second reason for the Americans to want Qaddafi out.

    And the third reason is that Libya controls part of the Mediterranean coast and it's not in American hands.

    Press TV: Who are the revolutionaries. The US say they don't know who they're dealing with, but considering the CIA is on the ground in contact with revolutionaries - Who are the people under whom Libya will function in any post-Qaddafi era?

    Roberts: Whether or not Libya functions under “revolutionaries” depends if the CIA wins - we don't know that yet. As you said earlier, the UN resolution puts constraints on what the European and American forces can achieve in Libya. They can have a no fly zone, but they are not supposed to be in there fighting together with the rebels.

    But of course the CIA is. So we do have these violations of the UN resolution. If NATO, which is now the cover for the “world community,” succeeds in overthrowing Qaddafi, the next target will be Syria. Syria has already been demonized.

    Why are they targeting Syria? - Because the Russians have a very large naval base in Syria. And it gives the Russian navy a presence in the Mediterranean; the US and NATO do not want that. If there is success in overthrowing Qaddafi, Syria is next.

    Already, they are blaming Iran for Syria and Libya. Iran is a major target because it is an independent state that is not a puppet of the Western colonialists.

    Press TV: With regards to the expansionist agenda of the West, when the UN mandate on Libya was debated in the UN Security Council, Russia did not veto it. Surely Russia must see this expansionist policy of the US, France and Britain.

    Roberts: Yes they must see that; and the same for China. It's a greater threat to China because it has 50 major investment projects in eastern Libya. So the question is why did Russia and China abstain rather than veto and block? We don't know the answer.

    Possibly the countries are thinking to let the Americans get further over- extended, or they may not have wanted to confront the US with a military or diplomatic position and have an onslaught of Western propaganda against them. We don't know the reasons, but we know they did abstain because they did not agree with the policy, and they continue to criticize it.

    Press TV: A sizeable portion of Qaddafi's assets have been frozen in the US as well as some other countries. We also know that the Libyan revolutionaries have set up a central bank and that they have started limited production of oil and they are dealing with American and other Western firms. It begs the question that we've never seen something like this happen in the middle of a revolution. Don't you find that bizarre?

    Roberts: Yes it's very bizarre and very suggestive. It brings back the fact of all the reports that the CIA is the originator of this so-called revolt and protest and is fomenting it and controlling it in a way that excludes China from its own Libyan oil investments.

    In my opinion, what is going on is comparable to what the US and Britain did to Japan in the 1930s. When they cut Japan off from oil, from rubber, from minerals; that was the origin of World War II in the pacific. And now the Americans and the British are doing the same thing to China.

    The difference is that China has nuclear weapons and it also has a stronger economy than do the Americans. And so the Americans are taking a very high risk not only with themselves, but with the rest of the world. The entire world is now at stake on American over-reach; American hubris - the drive for American hegemony over the world is driving the rest of the world into a World War.

    Press TV: In the context of America's expansionist policies, how far do you think the US will stretch beyond the UN mandate? Are we going to see boots on the ground?

    Roberts: Most likely - unless they can find some way of defeating Qaddafi without that. Ever since we've had Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and now Obama, what we've learned is law means nothing to the executive branch in the US. They don't obey our own laws; they don't obey international law; they violate all the civil liberties and buried the principal of habeas corpus, no crime without intent, and the ability for a defendant to be legally represented.

    They don't pay any attention to law so they're not going to pay any attention to the UN. The UN is an American puppet organization and Washington will use it as a cover. So, yes, if they cannot run Qaddafi out they will put troops on the ground - that's why we have the French and the British involved. We're using the French elsewhere in Africa also; we use the British in Afghanistan - they're puppets.

    These countries are not independent. Sarkozy doesn't report to the French people - he reports to Washington. The British PM doesn't report to the English people he reports to Washington. These are puppet rulers of an empire; they have nothing to do with their own people and we put them in office.

    Press TV: So these other countries would welcome having NATO troops on the ground?

    Roberts: Of course. They are in the CIAs pocket. It's a CIA operation, not a legitimate protest of the Libyan people. It's an armed rebellion that has no support in the capital city. It's taking place in the east where the oil is and is directed at China.

    Press TV: Where do you see the situation headed? There seems to be a rift between NATO countries with Britain and France wanting to increase the momentum of these air strikes, but the US saying no, there is no need.

    Roberts: The rift is not real. The rift is just part of the cover, just part of the propaganda. Qaddafi has been ruling for 40 years - he goes back to Gamal Abdel Nasser (before Anwar Sadat) who wanted to give independence to Egypt.

    He (Qaddafi) was never before called a brutal dictator that has to be removed. No other president has ever said Qaddafi has to go. Not even Ronald Reagan who actually bombed Qaddafi's compound. But all of a sudden he has to go. Why?

    Because he's blocking the US African Command, he controls part of the Mediterranean and he has let China in to find its energy needs for the future. Washington is trying to cripple its main rival, China, by denying China energy. That's what this is really about; a reaction by the US to China’s penetration of Africa.

    If the US was concerned about humanitarianism, it wouldn't be killing all these people in Afghanistan and Pakistan with their drones and military strikes. Almost always it's civilians that are killed. And the US is reluctant to issue apologies about any of it. They say we thought we were killing Taliban or some other made-up enemy.

    Press TV: Who will benefit from all of this other than the US? The other countries that comply with US wishes - What do they stand to gain from this?

    Roberts: We are only talking about NATO countries, the American puppet states. Britain, France, Italy, Germany, all belong to the American empire. We've had troops stationed in Germany since 1945. You're talking about 66 years of American occupation of Germany. The Americans have military bases in Italy - how is that an independent country? France was somewhat independent until Washington put Sarkozy in power. So they all do what they're told.

    Washington wants to rule Russia, China, Iran, and Africa, all of South America. Washington wants hegemony over the world. That's what the word hegemony means. And Washington will pursue it at all costs.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=24366

  • #2
    Re: PC Roberts Interviewed on Libya

    "Roberts: Of course. They are in the CIAs pocket. It's a CIA operation, not a legitimate protest of the Libyan people. It's an armed rebellion that has no support in the capital city. It's taking place in the east where the oil is and is directed at China."

    That seems like doubtful analysis to me. What is the evidence for this claim? From my recollection the protests in Tripoli were sizeable before they were crushed. The article below cites 61 people being killed in Tripoli.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...s-on-fire.html

    I wonder what work Roberts has really done to determine what the people doing the fighting believe they are engaged in. Seems an extremely presumptuous piece to me.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: PC Roberts Interviewed on Libya

      Here's a documentary I watched a few weeks ago:

      http://feb17.info/?s=documentary

      It is obviously partisan (as I myself am), but I find it hard to believe that these people are a) the unwitting stooges of some CIA operation or b) completely unrepresentative of the movement

      I wonder whether the CIA created similarly out of whole cloth the Charta 77 movement in Czech or Solidarnosc? Is there anything these people can't do?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: PC Roberts Interviewed on Libya

        At least one of the leaders spend some time in Langley
        Libyan Rebel Leader Spent Much of Past 20 Years in Langley Virginia

        By Chris Adams

        March 30, 2011 "McClatchy" -- WASHINGTON - The new leader of Libya's opposition military spent the past two decades in suburban Virginia but felt compelled — even in his late-60s — to return to the battlefield in his homeland, according to people who know him.

        Khalifa Hifter was once a top military officer for Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, but after a disastrous military adventure in Chad in the late 1980s, Hifter switched to the anti-Gadhafi opposition. In the early 1990s, he moved to suburban Virginia, where he established a life but maintained ties to anti-Gadhafi groups.

        Late last week, Hifter was appointed to lead the rebel army, which has been in chaos for weeks. He is the third such leader in less than a month, and rebels interviewed in Libya openly voiced distrust for the most recent leader, Abdel Fatah Younes, who had been at Gadhafi's side until just a month ago.

        At a news conference Thursday, the rebel's military spokesman said Younes will stay as Hifter's chief of staff, and added that the army — such as it is — would need "weeks" of training.
        http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle27795.htm

        There are so many interesting angles to this, especialy France & UK, Egypt and Italy


        Mubarak is gone and he was the one saying no the last time, also weapons are coming in from Egypt even US made ones. Would this happen under Mubarak?
        Who are the Libyan Freedom Fighters and Their Patrons?


        2) National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL)
        "With the aim of overthrowing Libyan strongman Muammar Khadafy, Israel and the U.S. trained anti-Libyan rebels in a number of West and Central African countries. The Paris-based African Confidential newsletter reported on January 5th, 1989, that the US and Israel had set up a series of bases in Chad and other neighboring countries to train 2000 Libyan rebels captured by the Chad army. The group, called The National Front for the Salvation of Libya, was based in Chad."4


        "US official records indicate that funding for the Chad-based secret war against Libya also came from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, Israel and Iraq. The Saudis, for instance, donated $7m to an opposition group, the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (also backed by French intelligence and the CIA). But a plan to assassinate Gadafi and take over the government on 8 May 1984 was crushed. In the following year, the US asked Egypt to invade Libya and overthrow Gadafi but President Mubarak refused. By the end of 1985, the Washington Post had exposed the plan after congressional leaders opposing it wrote in protest to President Reagan."5
        http://www.japanfocus.org/-Peter_Dale-Scott/3504


        Egypt Said to Arm Libya Rebels



        CAIRO—Egypt's military has begun shipping arms over the border to Libyan rebels with Washington's knowledge, U.S. and Libyan rebel officials said.
        The shipments—mostly small arms such as assault rifles and ammunition—appear to be the first confirmed case of an outside government arming the rebel fighters. Those fighters have been losing ground for days in the face of a steady westward advance by forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi.
        ...
        The Egyptian weapons transfers began "a few days ago" and are ongoing, according to a senior U.S. official. "There's no formal U.S. policy or acknowledgement that this is going on," said the senior official. But "this is something we have knowledge of."


        Calls to Egypt's foreign ministry and the spokesman for the prime minister seeking comment went unanswered. There is no means of reaching Egypt's military for comment. A Egyptian official in Washington said he had no knowledge of weapon shipments.
        The U.S. official also noted that the shipments appeared to come "too little, too late" to tip the military balance in favor of the rebels, who have faced an onslaught from Libyan forces backed by tanks, artillery and aircraft.
        "We know the Egyptian military council is helping us, but they can't be so visible," said Hani Souflakis, a Libyan businessman in Cairo who has been acting as a rebel liaison with the Egyptian government since the uprising began.
        "Weapons are getting through," said Mr. Souflakis, who says he has regular contacts with Egyptian officials in Cairo and the rebel leadership in Libya. "Americans have given the green light to the Egyptians to help. The Americans don't want to be involved in a direct level, but the Egyptians wouldn't do it if they didn't get the green light."
        ..

        http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...835270906.html


        Italy was the biggest partner and Berlusconi the best friend of Gaddafi, and when things looked bad for him they just suspended their treaty. Italy saved his life the last time in the 80's
        The attacks failed to kill Gaddafi. Forewarned by a telephone call, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and his family rushed out of their residence in the Bab al-Azizia compound moments before the bombs dropped.
        It was long thought that the call came from Malta's Prime Minister, Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici[citation needed]. However, according to Giulio Andreotti (the 42nd Prime Minister of Italy) and Abdel Rahman Shalgham (Libya's Foreign Minister from 2000 until 2009), Italian politician Bettino Craxi was the person who actually warned Gaddafi.[12]
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_El_Dorado_Canyon


        Further increasing international pressure on Colonel Qaddafi, the Libyan leader, Italy suspended a 2008 treaty with Libya that includes a nonaggression clause, a move that could allow it to take part in future peacekeeping operations in Libya or enable the use of its military bases in any possible intervention.
        “We signed the friendship treaty with a state, but when the counterpart no longer exists — in this case the Libyan state — the treaty cannot be applied,” Italy’s foreign minister, Franco Frattini, said Sunday in a television interview.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/wo...8military.html


        Gaddafi 'shocked' by European friends' betrayal


        Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi said he felt betrayed by former European allies like Italy's Silvio Berlusconi who have turned against him, and said business links with Europe will have lasting damage.

        http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/gaddafi...trayal-4073349
        Maybe all those affairs and attacks on Berlusconi were preplanned just like the attack on Liby itself in 2010.
        On November 2, 2010 France and Great Britain signed a mutual defense treaty, which paved the way for joint participation in a military exercise called ‘Southern Mistral’ (www.southern-mistral.cdaoa.fr). While war games are not uncommon, the similarities between ‘Southern Mistral’ and ‘Operation Odyssey Dawn’ highlight just how many unanswered questions remain regarding our own military planning for Libya.
        The ‘Southern Mistral’ war games called for Great Britain-French air strikes against an unnamed dictator of a fictional country, “Southland.” The pretend attack was authorized by a pretend United Nations Security Council Resolution. The ‘Southern Mistral’ war games were set for March 21-25, 2011.
        On March 19, 2011, the United States joined France and Great Britain in an air attack against Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 1973.


        ..
        http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/03/29-8




        Comment


        • #5
          Re: PC Roberts Interviewed on Libya

          Originally posted by oddlots View Post
          Here's a documentary I watched a few weeks ago:

          http://feb17.info/?s=documentary

          It is obviously partisan (as I myself am), but I find it hard to believe that these people are a) the unwitting stooges of some CIA operation or b) completely unrepresentative of the movement
          Sometimes its a combination of both. There is almost always exisiting opposition to tyrants like Qaddafi. Then others move in and hijack the movement for their own purposes. Sometimes without the knowledge of the original members. Hard to say really. But I have little doubt this rebellion is legit, at least on the part of some.


          In 1917 Russia the Bolsheviks and Lenin hijacked to some degree an existing left wing movement to remove the Czar. Eventually the Bolsheviks ended up crushing the sailors of Kronstadt, the very men who helped them to power and were the most dependable of their troops. So the real story can take years to play out. Many forget that the "Soviet system" was supposed to mean democracy. Didn't work out that way though.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: PC Roberts Interviewed on Libya

            Originally posted by flintlock
            In 1917 Russia the Bolsheviks and Lenin hijacked to some degree an existing left wing movement to remove the Czar. Eventually the Bolsheviks ended up crushing the sailors of Kronstadt, the very men who helped them to power and were the most dependable of their troops. So the real story can take years to play out. Many forget that the "Soviet system" was supposed to mean democracy. Didn't work out that way though.
            The takeover by Lenin was a second revolution; the actual overthrown of the Czar was months earlier in the February revolution.

            As for soviet - while the term has become hopelessly tangled with Communism due to the USSR, in fact it just means 'council'

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: PC Roberts Interviewed on Libya

              Well that was basically what I was trying to say, obviously poorly.

              My point was, revolutions get hijacked all the time. In fact, they almost always do. Either by meddling of outsiders( CIA, Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc) or from within by some strong ambitious group. Lenin in my opinion, was nothing more than a idealistic academic , who once given a little taste of power, quickly forgot a lot of his idealistic principles. He justified brutality in the name of preserving the revolution, while in reality it was probably just about retaining power.

              IIRC, the Bolsheviks made up only a minority(~25%?) when it was put to the vote. Its complex and I'm no authority on the Revolution, but if you study enough of these things you start to see a pattern develop. Good meaning people almost always give way to better organized, more ruthless types.

              The Soviets( councils) were supposed to be where the real power lay. And we know how that worked out. Of course it was foolish to think a bunch of factory workers were going to be able to run a nation the size of Russia from the breakroom floor.

              One thing I'm confident of, Libya is not going to end up run by some student led democracy movement. Nor Egypt. That's not to say their support could not lead to something better than they have now. But it could also end up worse.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: PC Roberts Interviewed on Libya

                Re. Khalifa Hifter I would both assume that he has had contact with the CIA and that this in itself does not entirely discredit him.* As the article points out, he is the third commander of the rebel forces, the one prior being - like most of the rebel leadership and the majority of Libya's diplomatic corps - recently close to Gadaffi. Without suggesting that this was your intention, I don't think this is good evidence that the CIA has authored the affair.

                There are so many interesting angles to this,
                Agreed and I would certainly admit that I have been arguing for a position on this that could reasonably be viewed as historically naive. That said, the point I have been trying to make is that this period is unprecedented in the ME and therefore that comparisons to past dealings or relationships are, arguably, precisely beside the point.

                especialy France & UK, Egypt and Italy Mubarak is gone and he was the one saying no the last time, also weapons are coming in from Egypt even US made ones. Would this happen under Mubarak?
                Well, no. In fact that's the point to my mind: the whole ground has shifted. What is the significance of the fact that this wouldn't have happened under Mubarak? Would this indicate that Mubarak was keeping the peace at the west's behest as the dictatorial leader of a regional powerhouse in a region of dictatorships? If that was accurate then how could it be that his recent downfall and the domino-like fall of other authoritarian regimes in the region is somehow also a demonstration of western puppet-mastery?

                Maybe it's a story of changing horses mid-stream: the US and other governments have decided that their best interests lie in trying to get on board with the reform movement, as also suggested by your reference below:

                Italy was the biggest partner and Berlusconi the best friend of Gaddafi, and when things looked bad for him they just suspended their treaty. Italy saved his life the last time in the 80's
                Two points on this score: 1) If this is an accurate description of how western powers have dealt with the Arab Spring events, then it's a little hard to argue that the West is also somehow behind it in some sort of authorship role: how do you find yourself surprised and flat footed by an unfolding script you've actually written yourself? 2) If your point with the above is that the UK and Italy find themselves embarrassed by their earlier willingness to trade economic favours with the regime I think that's kind of a weak argument. We are constantly making these kinds of accommodations with reality. In fact there's a kind of insanity involved with not making these kind of accommodations: think of the sanctions against Iraq after the first Gulf war. They always struck me as a particularly cruel act akin to starving a despot's prisoners in order to force the despot's hand. (Yeah, that'll work. He clearly cares.) So, in this context, I'm willing to forgive a little apparent moral double-dealing because life goes on (after Lockerbie etc.) as long as this also does not rule out that, when a huge opportunity for change - or a step-change - in the political landscape of a whole region arrives it is not squandered by an obsession with consistency. For god's sake most of the opposition is ex-Gadaffi-loyalists. (What else would they be in such a state?) If the Libyans can appreciate the messiness of this history and still move forward who cares about Blair's or Berlusconi's chummy relationship with him?

                I think this is the reality summed up by Frattini here and I think it's an entirely reasonable argument:

                “We signed the friendship treaty with a state, but when the counterpart no longer exists — in this case the Libyan state — the treaty cannot be applied,” Italy’s foreign minister, Franco Frattini, said Sunday in a television interview.
                Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi said he felt betrayed by former European allies like Italy's Silvio Berlusconi who have turned against him, and said business links with Europe will have lasting damage.
                The point in this statement from Gadaffi's point of view is obviously to threaten Western business interests. But this kind of argues against your train of thought so I'm confused as to your point. Surely you don't care about his hurt feelings? (If not, why is this significant to you?)

                Re. the Kucinich speech: I skipped this (sorry ...zzzz) though I admire him a lot (I just don't care about constitutional obsessions. Not a yank.)

                A last thought: the thing that bugs me about most of the comments here about (for convenience) the "Arab Spring" is that they seem to somehow deny any agency to the thousands upon thousands who have expressed a degree of commitment and frustration that is simply breathtaking. That seems extremely obtuse to me. How fed up would any of us have to be to brave snipers for days on end to just get even a hint of democratic legitimacy introduced into government. I recall reading a piece where the author opined that Muhammad Al Bouazizi's self immolation was "foolish." The fact that this could cause the outpouring of an entire country's frustration means that it was anything but foolish. In fact the fools are the politicians standing around his bedside trying to look contrite and concerned (after the fact, in more ways than one) and western commentators that seem to be their unwitting fellow travellers.



                Maybe it's a generational thing.

                BTW, I don't mean to project all of this onto you or your links above. Just trying to think it out for myself.


                * Anymore than Iranian rockbands have somehow become the "puppets" - to use Robert's term of the CIA. See here.
                Last edited by oddlots; April 18, 2011, 12:18 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: PC Roberts Interviewed on Libya

                  Well, no. In fact that's the point to my mind: the whole ground has shifted. What is the significance of the fact that this wouldn't have happened under Mubarak? Would this indicate that Mubarak was keeping the peace at the west's behest as the dictatorial leader of a regional powerhouse in a region of dictatorships? If that was accurate then how could it be that his recent downfall and the domino-like fall of other authoritarian regimes in the region is somehow also a demonstration of western puppet-mastery?

                  Maybe it's a story of changing horses mid-stream: the US and other governments have decided that their best interests lie in trying to get on board with the reform movement, as also suggested by your reference below:
                  Now they have the military running the show and protesters at Tahir Square are probably worse of then before. Mubarak suddenly quit...
                  In a statement on Tuesday, Mubarak promised not to stand for re-election this autumn but said he would stay in office until then. Neither the protesters nor the international community were satisfied with this plan.
                  http://www.euronews.net/2011/02/04/f...ak-won-t-quit/

                  Did they like an alliance between Iran and Egypt when they are trying to isolate Iran? Their puppet was clearly not taking orders anymore?
                  Are Bitter Foes Egypt and Iran Burying the Hatchet?

                  CAIRO, Egypt (Oct. 7) -- In what many see as a calibrated rapprochement between two of the Muslim world's most powerful and long-embittered foes, Iran and Egypt this week announced an agreement to resume direct flights after more than 30 years.

                  ..
                  http://www.aolnews.com/2010/10/07/ar...g-the-hatchet/
                  Two points on this score: 1) If this is an accurate description of how western powers have dealt with the Arab Spring events, then it's a little hard to argue that the West is also somehow behind it in some sort of authorship role: how do you find yourself surprised and flat footed by an unfolding script you've actually written yourself? 2) If your point with the above is that the UK and Italy find themselves embarrassed by their earlier willingness to trade economic favours with the regime I think that's kind of a weak argument. We are constantly making these kinds of accommodations with reality. In fact there's a kind of insanity involved with not making these kind of accommodations: think of the sanctions against Iraq after the first Gulf war. They always struck me as a particularly cruel act akin to starving a despot's prisoners in order to force the despot's hand. (Yeah, that'll work. He clearly cares.) So, in this context, I'm willing to forgive a little apparent moral double-dealing because life goes on (after Lockerbie etc.) as long as this also does not rule out that, when a huge opportunity for change - or a step-change - in the political landscape of a whole region arrives it is not squandered by an obsession with consistency. For god's sake most of the opposition is ex-Gadaffi-loyalists. (What else would they be in such a state?) If the Libyans can appreciate the messiness of this history and still move forward who cares about Blair's or Berlusconi's chummy relationship with him?
                  Gaddafi took the blame, made concessions to the IMF, because he saw what happened to Iraq. Libya remained the country in Africa with the highest living standard according to the UN HDI. If the plan by the West is to divide and conquer, it will have an impact on living standards...
                  Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Accepts Article VIII Obligations

                  The government of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has notified the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that it has accepted the obligations of Article VIII, Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the IMF Articles of Agreement, with effect from June 21, 2003


                  http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2003/pr03122.htm

                  Police chief- Lockerbie evidence was faked


                  Published Date: 28 August 2005
                  By MARCELLO MEGA
                  A FORMER Scottish police chief has given lawyers a signed statement claiming that key evidence in the Lockerbie bombing trial was fabricated.
                  The retired officer - of assistant chief constable rank or higher - has testified that the CIA planted the tiny fragment of circuit board crucial in convicting a Libyan for the 1989 mass murder of 270 people.

                  The police chief, whose identity has not yet been revealed, gave the statement to lawyers representing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, currently serving a life sentence in Greenock Prison
                  ..
                  http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Po...was.2656485.jp
                  The point in this statement from Gadaffi's point of view is obviously to threaten Western business interests. But this kind of argues against your train of thought so I'm confused as to your point. Surely you don't care about his hurt feelings? (If not, why is this significant to you?)
                  The West is not always the West, Italy had always been a big partner and they were not always dancing to the tune of NATO, US & UK or French interests
                  Enrico Mattei (April 29, 1906 - October 27, 1962) was an Italian public administrator. After World War II he was given the task of dismantling the Italian Petroleum Agency Agip, a state enterprise established by the Fascist regime. Instead Mattei enlarged and reorganized it into the National Fuel Trust Ente Nazionale Idrocarburi (ENI). Under his direction ENI negotiated important oil concessions in the Middle East as well as a significant trade agreement with the Soviet Union which helped break the oligopolySeven Sisters' that dominated the mid 20th century oil industry. He also introduced the principle whereby the country that owned exploited oil reserves received 75% of the profits.[1] of the '


                  During his controversial tenure of ENI, Mattei had made many enemies. The US National Security Council described him as an irritation and an obstacle in a classified report from 1958. The French could not forgive him for doing business with the pro-independence movement in Algeria. Responsibility for his death has been attributed to the CIA, to the French extreme-nationalist group, the OAS, to the Sicilian Mafia.[3]
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrico_Mattei

                  He is pissed, because Gaddafi had all these projects with Russia,China and Italy and now it looks like it's all down the drain.
                  Gaddafi also said that he no longer trusts the West. “We don’t trust their ambassadors, they conspired against us. We don’t trust their companies.” He also announced the consequences from this: “We will now invest in Russia, India and China. Our money will be invested there. Our oil contracts will go to Russian, Chinese and Indian companies. Forget the West!” He did, however, explicitly exempt Germany from his criticism of the West.

                  http://www.rtlgroup.com/www/htm/home...7B8C22C0EB0461

                  Italian firms, investments hit by Libyan crisis


                  http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90...3/7305417.html

                  China rail builder suspends Libya projects

                  http://tinyurl.com/3kx8kdz
                  Libya: From Weapons To Gas, Russia Fears Losses

                  http://www.eurasiareview.com/libya-f...sses-04032011/



                  Re. the Kucinich speech: I skipped this (sorry ...zzzz) though I admire him a lot (I just don't care about constitutional obsessions. Not a yank.)

                  .
                  Kucinich not only talked about about the legality, but about the UK&French war games called Southern Mistral foreshadowing the attack.

                  edited to add:

                  funny stuff


                  Saif Gaddafi’s international image has collapsed just as quickly. The Gaddafi scion, who was awarded a doctorate in governance and international relations at the London School of Economics in 2008, had many friends in the West before the crisis erupted in February. But then he delivered an extraordinary televised address vowing to fight until “the last man, the last woman, the last bullet.”
                  ..
                  Ironically, he had brought many reformers into the government in the past decade, while promising that Libya would move toward democracy and freedom of expression under a new constitution.
                  Several of those men have since defected and play leading roles in the rebel Transitional National Council, a fact that could help explain the younger Gaddafi’s keenness to emphasize his nationalist credentials.


                  “They were my friends — we drink together, we eat together, we sit together, we travel together. They were my own people,” he said. “Now this is my biggest problem in Libya. I get messages from volunteers on the front. They told me: ‘After the victory, you, Saif, have no place here in Libya. Everything is because of you. Because those criminals, these traitors were your friends, and you brought them here.’ ”


                  Mahmoud Jibril, a U.S.-educated professor brought back to Libya by Saif Gaddafi to help run the nation’s economic policy, is the rebels’ foreign affairs representative. “He was my best friend. He changed completely. I don’t know why,” Saif Gaddafi said, his voice lowering with a tinge of hurt. “Now he is sitting with Hillary Clinton, with [British Foreign Secretary William] Hague, and with [French President Nicolas] Sarkozy in the Elysee. Excuse me, he said, ‘Saif, you are too small for me now.’ ”


                  http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...HvD_print.html



                  Last edited by D-Mack; April 18, 2011, 03:03 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: PC Roberts Interviewed on Libya

                    Fascinating stuff D-mack, thanks.

                    Now they have the military running the show and protesters at Tahir Square are probably worse of then before.
                    I don't understand where the pessimism here comes from. All blessings will be mixed in a country - arguably - emerging from 30 years of political repression. What do you do with ~ 500k secret policemen, with the apparatus of state repression? The situation is not a simple monolithic fact (e.g., the protesters win, old guard loses, and everyone goes "home" like after a football match.) But equally I don't see how you can write off the whole thing as if nothing's been achieved. The secret police has been disbanded and the former ruling family is under investigation for self-dealing. That's huge, surely, even if largely in symbolic terms. Reading tweets and blogs of the protesters throughout the events in Egypt there was a constant refrain of "the works not over etc..." It's one thing to recognise this (as an outsider), another to dismiss the whole enterprise (again, as an outsider.) Without personalising this, I have to ask myself, why this apparent need to see the revolution fail? It strikes me as cranky in the extreme.

                    Did they like an alliance between Iran and Egypt when they are trying to isolate Iran? Their puppet was clearly not taking orders anymore?
                    That just strikes me as evidence fitting: you take current events and then reverse engineer the motives that led the Powers that Be to make it so. I find it hard to believe, given the chaotic way events have swept the region, that anyone has had any significant control over the unfolding situation in multiple countries at the same time. It seems the very antithesis of the "at a time and place of our choosing" aspect of the foreign intervention playbook.

                    Gaddafi took the blame, made concessions to the IMF, because he saw what happened to Iraq. Libya remained the country in Africa with the highest living standard according to the UN HDI. If the plan by the West is to divide and conquer, it will have an impact on living standards...
                    I think you're onto something here. I have heard any Gadaffi defectors praise the early gains of the regime (first decade, for instance) in economic and social terms and I've seen opposition supporters say that this is not about economic rights (that they're comfortable, have good jobs etc.) If the trend (plot?) is to re-integrate Libya into the world's economic system (cough) then those gains - if they exist - are likely at risk.

                    The situation reminds me (here he goes again) of Eastern Europe. I remember having heated arguments with western-european socialists during the revolution in 89. They were shrilly warning, in effect, that the Czech's didn't know how good they had it. This raised hackles among the Czechs I knew - they absolutely despised these people. I can both 1) see now that they had a point (and wish that, at the time, I had a better understanding of how finance undermines democratic rights in the west and how Eastern Europe would wind up "all-loaned-up") 2) still stand by my belief that there is something wrong with the logic of this trade-off where, if you want somehow to enjoy some economic fairness one has to submit to being ruled over by a police state.

                    The same thing applies to Libya. I can see that Libyans 20 years hence might find themselves mere bystanders to their own economy. That outcome is uncertain, however, while Gadaffi's brutality, past and present, is not. Given that, I would hesitate to lend Gadaffi's apparent economic nationalism any legitimacy. It's a false choice that - as far as I can tell - is being roundly rejected by Libyans.

                    A FORMER Scottish police chief has given lawyers a signed statement claiming that key evidence in the Lockerbie bombing trial was fabricated.
                    The retired officer - of assistant chief constable rank or higher - has testified that the CIA planted the tiny fragment of circuit board crucial in convicting a Libyan for the 1989 mass murder of 270 people.
                    The police chief, whose identity has not yet been revealed, gave the statement to lawyers representing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, currently serving a life sentence in Greenock Prison
                    This seems very plausible to me. I never understood the Lockerbie thing. Why, for instance, the UK would have released what's-his-ears with the certain outcry it provoked. The idea that it was all a put-up job - I mean the apportioning of blame, not the bombing itself - actually offers an elegant solution.

                    Re. on it's face the Mistral thing seems significant until one thinks a little more about it. What an astounding coincidence: a bunch of western military planners planned to bomb a country with UN approval! Wouldn't it be more surprising if the war games bore no relationship to reality? The argument is fiendishly circular: the better they plan the more sinister they become, with the crowning absurdity the fact that the planning resembles a real subsequent crisis becomes an indictment of the process rather than it's vindication.

                    In that night, all cows are black.
                    Last edited by oddlots; April 18, 2011, 10:39 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: PC Roberts Interviewed on Libya

                      That just strikes me as evidence fitting: you take current events and then reverse engineer the motives that led the Powers that Be to make it so. I find it hard to believe, given the chaotic way events have swept the region, that anyone has had any significant control over the unfolding situation in multiple countries at the same time. It seems the very antithesis of the "at a time and place of our choosing" aspect of the foreign intervention playbook.
                      I don't know what happened in Egypt and how big the influence by the US was.
                      It's interesting that his sons biggest enemies Tantawi and Suleiman took power after revolution.

                      1. (C) Summary: In a recent meeting with poloff, XXXXXXXXXXXX
                      parliamentarian XXXXXXXXXXXX discussed presidential son Gamal Mubarak's
                      possible succession of his father, and opined that Gamal
                      increasingly views Minister of Defense Mohamed Hussein
                      Tantawi and EGIS head Omar Suleiman as a threat to his
                      presidential ambitions.
                      XXXXXXXXXXXX alleged that Tantawi recently
                      told him, in confidence, of his deepening frustration with
                      Gamal. End summary.

                      ---------------------------------------------
                      GAMAL ANGLING TO "GET RID" OF HIS COMPETITION
                      ---------------------------------------------

                      2. (S) On March 29, XXXXXXXXXXXX noted to poloff his assessment that
                      the recently approved constitutional amendments package is
                      largely aimed at ensuring Gamal Mubarak's succession of his
                      father, and "a more controllable, stable political scene when
                      he does take the reins." Opining that "Gamal and his clique"
                      are becoming more confident in the inevitability of Gamal's
                      succession, and are now angling to remove potential
                      "stumbling blocks," XXXXXXXXXXXX said that speculation among Cairo's
                      elite is that there could be a cabinet reshuffle as soon as
                      May or June, in which Minister of Defense Tantawi and/or EGIS
                      head Omar Suleiman would be replaced.
                      "Those two are
                      increasingly viewed as a threat by Gamal and those around
                      him," and thus Gamal is reportedly pushing Mubarak to get
                      them out of the way, so they "could not pose any problems" in
                      the event of a succession. XXXXXXXXXXXX speculated that "hitches"
                      to a Gamal succession could occur if Mubarak died before
                      installing his son: "Gamal knows this, and so wants to stack
                      the deck in his favor as much as possible now, while Mubarak
                      is firmly in control, just in case his father drops dead sooner rather than later."
                      http://www.wikileaks.ch/cable/2007/04/07CAIRO974.html




                      E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/30/2028
                      TAGS: PGOV PHUM KDEM EG
                      SUBJECT: APRIL 6 ACTIVIST ON HIS U.S. VISIT AND REGIME
                      CHANGE IN EGYPT

                      REF: A. CAIRO 2462
                      B. CAIRO 2454
                      C. CAIRO 2431

                      Classified By: ECPO A/Mincouns Catherine Hill-Herndon for reason 1.4 (d).

                      1. (C) Summary and comment: On December 23, April 6 activist
                      XXXXXXXXXXXX expressed satisfaction with his participation in
                      the December 3-5 "Alliance of Youth Movements Summit," and
                      with his subsequent meetings with USG officials, on Capitol
                      Hill, and with think tanks. He described how State Security
                      (SSIS) detained him at the Cairo airport upon his return and
                      confiscated his notes for his summit presentation calling for
                      democratic change in Egypt, and his schedule for his
                      Congressional meetings. XXXXXXXXXXXX contended that the GOE will never undertake significant reform, and therefore, Egyptians
                      need to replace the current regime with a parliamentary
                      democracy. He alleged that several opposition parties and
                      movements have accepted an unwritten plan for democratic
                      transition by 2011; we are doubtful of this claim. XXXXXXXXXXXX
                      said that although SSIS recently released two April 6
                      activists, it also arrested three additional group members.
                      We have pressed the MFA for the release of these April 6
                      activists. April 6's stated goal of replacing the current
                      regime with a parliamentary democracy prior to the 2011
                      presidential elections is highly unrealistic, and is not
                      supported by the mainstream opposition.
                      End summary and
                      comment.
                      http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2008/12/08CAIRO2572.html

                      I'm not saying they(US,CIA,NED etc) did it, but I found it interesting that the APril 6th movement used the sama logo, which was used by OTPOR! in Yugoslavia. Maybe it's just having all options and supporting both sides to control the outcome anyway it goes.
                      A number of Serbian news sources of varying quality (Alo, Vesti Online) have now published articles suggesting that former Otpor activists have been training some opposition groups, including interviews with anonymous former Otpor members and the Serbian embassy.

                      The main group in question seems to be April 6, launched first as a facebook group. The group has currently over 87,000 members and has been active for nearly three years already.
                      http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/blog...ction-in-egypt

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X