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.