WEST PUTS LIBYA OIL ABOVE DEMOCRACY

WEST PUTS LIBYA OIL ABOVE DEMOCRACY



Former Arab League Ambassador to the UN Clovis Maksoud says the West's delay in condemning the recent repressions by the Libyan regime is partly due to its concerns over oil supplies from the country.


The West showed “reluctance” to denounce the repressions by Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi's regime “partly because of the oil factor … [and] that was one factor to inhibit many of those who are importing oil from Libya,” Maksoud said in an interview with Press TV.

This is while beleaguered Gaddafi “is presenting his people with two options … either he is allowed to govern them or he kills them,” he deplored.

Maksoud also warned against any unilateral action against the North African nation, saying any “enforcement method against Libya must be authorized by the UN” and it has to be in the form of an international force.”

The former Arab League envoy argued that military action or declaring Libya a no-fly zone should be decided collectively.

“It should be authorized by the Security Council without anybody vetoing it, which means that China and Russia have to be included in the decision," he noted.

The Libyan revolution, inspired by the recent revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia, sparked nearly two weeks ago.

Brutal crackdown by the Libyan regime on anti-government protesters has left thousands of people dead so far.

Gaddafi, however, has vowed to stay in power despite the fact that most of the country, except for capital Tripoli, has come under the control of anti-government forces and the former justice minister has formed a transitional government.

Thousands of Libyan people have been fleeing to neighboring Egypt, Tunisia and other European countries like Italy.

The revolution in the North African oil-rich nation has also led to a significant hike in the global oil prices.

The United States and other foreign governments discussed military options for dealing with Libya on Monday as beleaguered Gaddafi scoffed at the threat to his government.

Read More

US DOUBLE-STANDARD HOLDS LIBYAN PEACE

US DOUBLE-STANDARD HOLDS LIBYAN PEACE


The Libyan people's fight for peace is held in purgatory as ruler Muammar Gaddafi continues to be backed by the US double standard, says a former US Ambassador.



In an interview with Press TV, former US Ambassador to Mauritania Edward Peck comments on the double standard imposed by the US in the region and how it impedes viable solutions for Libya.


Press TV: It's good to have you with us, sir, on the program. Tell us your understanding of the events that have been happening recently and especially today.


Peck: It is so difficult to discuss in any rational form because it almost gives the impression that the entire region's falling apart; of course, it's not. It's going through serious adjustments, we have to call them. But, one thing that is clear, and everyone agrees, is that it's a long way from being over.


I recall with some distress all of the enthusiasm of Americans not too long ago when Mubarak left and they said it's all over. No, that's kind of a start and you have a long way to go whether Gaddafi stays or goes. Either way, it's going to be a long complicated situation that they're going to have to deal with orderly in order to have something work out the way it is that we all hope.


Press TV: Would you explain a little more on that? What is it that we are going to have to wait and see?


Peck: Here's Egypt, a place I've also served in. The fact of the matter is that what the Egyptian people succeeded in doing, rather quickly, was to get rid of the symbol in the sense that Mubarak left. Now what?


I know Americans were justifiably elated by that development but it didn't really change anything because the army has been in power since 1952. And it's still in power. And so, what is it exactly that had changed? Well, nothing. They got rid of a symptom. Not the disease. That doesn't do much. So now we have to wait and see what gets sorted out because these things never happen quickly. They take time and a great deal of patience. People become impatient.


And the same thing in Tunisia, the worst case by far is out in Libya. And when is that going to be over? How will it end?


Press TV: Of course, we have the issue of the United States response to this issue as well. The latest being it's redeploying its naval forces near the borders of Libya. What do you think it means? Does it mean a military response, perhaps?


Peck: I would certainly hope that the United States has got the sense not to do that. We probably have just about all the wars we could handle in this particular point. I don't make those decisions, as you're well aware.


The deployment can be symbolic in which we say “rattling of the saber”, in the English language. “Hey, we're watching you. Don't do anymore of this.” But, Mr. Gaddafi, on the basis of what I know about him, is unlikely to be affected by that kind of display because it, by itself, doesn't mean anything. I would be very surprised if the United States is thinking about starting another war. It's been a couple of years since we started the last one. And it's still ongoing as you're well aware.


Press TV: Ambassador Peck, do you think this issue of “we're watching you” is enough after this many lives have been lost?


Peck: No, it isn't enough. But what are the alternatives? If the United States, or the EU, or other countries in the region set out to topple Mr. Gaddafi, how exactly do they expect to do it? He's not going to quit. He's not going to give up. And so, it's going to become a very serious issue if you try to take him on militarily because, I don't think, this country is ready for anymore of that especially since we do not know what kind of a struggle would evolve from an effort to take him out.


Press TV: In terms of the humanitarian conditions, a great deal is left to be desired. In fact, let me be very clear about this, there's always some kind of a military option, it seems to me, when it comes to American foreign policy rather than paying attention to the humanitarian aspects. As you know, only 2% of the Libyan soil is good for agriculture. Food is a serious problem at the moment. There is no talk of that.


Peck: Well, you can't get food into a country such as that or any other country, really, if the people in charge don't want to let you do it. You may remember the evil rebellion in Liberia so many years ago where the American people wanted to get food aid into the people of that country and the local government said no. So what are you going to do fight your way in for food? So that doesn't seem to serve anybody's interests.


A military option is a horrible thought because it is involving more killing, more death, which is what you are allegedly trying to stop. The last point I would make in answer to this question is that it is not America's responsibility, really. I don't see signs of any Arab country trying to take on military efforts, and they're right there.


Press TV: The thing about the United States foreign policy is that, putting military options aside, now we have Secretary Clinton saying that the man is unfit to rule. And in her latest remarks Ambassador Rice, herself being a psychologist, says that the man is no more fit to rule the country. But the man has been ruling the country for four decades and everybody is well aware of that. Why is it that these facts are surfacing just now?


Peck: Well, now that is a very penetrating question, my friend. And I wish I had an answer for you. But I do not. Things like this have been going on all around the world for centuries. And all of a sudden something will happen that calls for people to take notice. I am very interested in the fact that although everyone here in the United States is bellowing and snorting about the importance of human rights, liberty, justice, freedom, democracy, international law, and all of that, we don't think that that is necessarily something that has to exist in every country including some countries in which we are very friendly.


So, if you wish to go that route, how is it that you decide which ones you're going to stay with and which ones you're going to ignore? And the answer is, I really don't know. But it doesn't make a great deal of sense to me to have the Americans running around talking extensively about the freedom and liberty for the people of Libya, for example, where we're not concerned about it in many other places where we have a much more direct role. And every country in the world, you may quote me, applies what some people refer to as a 'double standard': if our friends do it it's ok, but if the people we don't like do it it's not okay at all. And that's a problem where we're stuck now.


Mrs. Clinton, as you're well aware, does not make foreign policy, she is merely the spokesperson on the affairs. She makes an input. Secretaries of State do not decide what it is we're going to do. So she has a role that gets people to understand that we're very serious about this. “How serious are you?” Well, we're not sure yet. And I don't think it's fair to blame us for the things that are going wrong there, although people will tend to do that because we are a hyper-power.


Press TV: One final thing, again, besides a possible US military intervention that we just discussed, would you say, in light of an unanimous vote that happens in the UNSC against Libya, do you, perhaps, foresee any other military interventions, perhaps by NATO anytime in the future?


Peck: I don't myself. But there's a great deal of talking, and I don't mean to sound like it isn't important, and of thrashing around to figure out what it is that might be done. I do not, myself, foresee a military intervention by anybody in the near future. And I could be wrong.

Read More

ISRAEL PROVIDES MERCENARIES FOR GADDAFI

ISRAEL PROVIDES MERCENARIES FOR GADDAFI

Israeli arms distribution company Global CST has reportedly, under the authorization of Tel Aviv, provided Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi with African mercenaries to clamp down on anti-government protesters.



Egyptian sources have revealed that the Israeli company has so far provided Gaddafi's regime with 50,000 African mercenaries to attack the civilian anti-government protesters in Libya.


The arms company was previously convicted in an African country over illegal deals, News-Israel website reported.


Sources say Global CST had obtained the permission for providing the mercenaries to Gaddafi from the Israeli officials in advance.


Earlier, Global CST general manager had met with the head of the Israeli Intelligence Agencies (Aman) and Defense Minister Ehud Barak and obtained the permission for the measure.


The company representatives also met with Abdullah Sanusi, the head of Libyan Internal Intelligence, in Chad to discuss the details for a final agreement, the report says.


The mercenaries who attack the civilians in Tripoli have mostly come from Chad.


Gaddafi regime pays $2000 per day for each mercenary. The mercenaries receive $100 per day and the remaining goes to Global CST, the report says.


Meanwhile, the United States has demanded the UN Security Council (UNSC) to remove the provisions of charging mercenaries with war crimes in the killing of Libyan civilians.


The request is for the UNSC to word the resolution in a way that no one from an outside country that is not a member of the International Criminal Court could be prosecuted by the Court for their actions in Libya.


The Libyan revolution, inspired by the recent revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia, sparked nearly two weeks ago.


Brutal crackdown by the Libyan regime on anti-government protesters has left thousands of people dead so far.

Read More

LIBYA: AFRICAN MERCENARIES IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION FOR WAR CRIMES

LIBYA: AFRICAN MERCENARIES IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION FOR WAR CRIMES

African mercenaries hired by the Gaddafi regime to kill Libyan protesters would be immune from prosecution for war crimes due to a clause in this weekend's UN resolution that was demanded by the United States.

The UN Security Council agreed on Saturday evening to freeze international assets belonging to the Gaddafis and their key aides, to ban them from travelling and to block all arms sales to Tripoli. It also called for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate the killings of demonstrators.

This inquiry could lead to senior Libyan ministers and officials being indicted to stand trial for crimes against humanity at The Hague and being given lengthy prison sentences.

But it has been widely alleged that many of the attacks were in fact carried out by foreign mercenaries hired by Colonel Gaddafi. And the US insisted that the UN resolution was worded so that no one from an outside country that is not a member of the ICC could be prosecuted for their actions in Libya.

This means that mercenaries from countries such as Algeria, Ethiopia and Tunisia – which have all been named by rebel Libyan diplomats to the UN as being among the countries involved – would escape prosecution even if they were captured, because their nations are not members of the court.

The move was seen as an attempt to prevent a precedent that could see Americans prosecuted by the ICC for alleged crimes in other conflicts. While the US was once among the signatories to the court, George W. Bush withdrew from it in 2002 and declared that it did not have power over Washington.

The key paragraph said that anyone from a non-ICC country alleged to have committed crimes in Libya would “be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction” of their own country. It was inserted despite Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the UN, saying that all those “who slaughter civilians” would “be held personally accountable”.

Speaking to reporters outside the council chamber, Gerard Araud, the French UN ambassador, described the paragraph as “a red line for the United States”, meaning American diplomats had been ordered by their bosses in Washington to secure it. “It was a deal-breaker, and that's the reason we accepted this text to have the unanimity of the council,” said Mr Araud.

Carne Ross, a former British diplomat to the UN, said on Sunday that a mechanism was needed urgently to allow Libyans to report the names of people they believed should be subject to the UN sanctions.

“With no diplomats in situ, I don't see how outside states can know who these people might be,” Mr Ross wrote on his blog. “Instead, how about providing a channel for Libyans on the ground observing the crimes of the regime to nominate people?”

Mr Ross, who now runs a non-profit diplomatic advisory group, suggested that international authorities set up “an email address where Libyans can nominate people for sanctions” or even open a online “Wiki” on which Libyans could build a list of perpetrators.

Read More