Bild
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m78509&hd=&size=1&l=e
NATO’s Libya 'hope' strategy is bombing
LEWIS MacKENZIE
June 10, 2011
We are now in the 84th day of the bombing campaign that the United Nations Security Council authorized to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya in a bid to protect civilians from Moammar Gadhafi’s forces. In a bizarre development, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has said it will extend the campaign for 90 days, surely a first in the history of war when one side "extends the contract" for a set period. This presumably occurred because NATO’s strategy is still based on the flimsy hope that Colonel Gadhafi will see the error of his ways and capitulate before his surroundings and his supporters are bombed back to the Stone Age.
NATO’s obsession with its strategy of hope was tried once before in 1999, with the bombing of Serbia and the breakaway province of Kosovo. A myth that the 78-day bombing campaign persuaded Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic to withdraw his forces from Kosovo continues to grow despite overwhelming facts to the contrary.
Before that war – and contributing to its start – the international community gathered in Rambouillet, France, and, on March 18, 1999, produced an accord that spelled out a peace plan to deal with the armed insurrection by the Kosovo Liberation Army (designated at the time by the CIA as a terrorist organization).
Unfortunately – but intentionally – the accord contained two poison pills that Mr. Milosevic could never accept, making war or at least the allied bombing of a sovereign state inevitable. The first pill demanded that NATO have freedom of movement throughout the entire land, sea and airspace of the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In other words, NATO would have the right to park its tanks around Mr. Milosevic’s downtown office in Belgrade. The other pill required that a referendum be held within three years to determine the will of those citizens living in Kosovo regarding independence. The fact that Kosovo’s population was overwhelmingly Albanian Muslim guaranteed that the outcome of any such referendum would be a vote for independence and the loss of the Serbian nation’s historic heart.
Mr. Milosevic refused to sign the accord, and NATO began bombing Serbia on March 24, 1999, without a Security Council resolution, citing a "humanitarian emergency" – a decision still widely challenged by many international legal scholars. NATO said it would take only a few days of bombing to persuade Mr. Milosevic to withdraw his forces from Kosovo.
As the weeks dragged on, NATO’s strategy of hope appeared to be in serious trouble. Its aircraft, incapable of destroying to any significant degree the Serbian military’s personnel and equipment, had turned to bombing fixed infrastructure: bridges, roads, factories, refineries, TV stations. As in all wars conducted from thousands of feet above the target, mistakes were made and civilians were killed. In one town I visited during the campaign, a medical clinic and a 10-storey apartment building had been demolished, with no "legitimate" targets anywhere to be seen.
With no indication that Mr. Milosevic was going to give in, diplomacy was given a long overdue chance. Led by Russian envoy Vitaly Churkin, Mr. Milosevic was told that, if he withdrew from Kosovo, the two poison pills would be removed from the Rambouillet accord. Within days, Mr. Milosevic agreed.
Myth buster: Diplomacy, not bombing, played the key role in bringing a punitive bombing campaign based on hope to an end.
The same solution should be pursued in the case of Libya. The main obstacle is the rebel leadership. The UN envoy to Libya has requested that the rebels call for a ceasefire, but they have steadfastly refused to do so until Col. Gadhafi is gone. NATO leaders are no longer demanding Col. Gadhafi’s removal as a prerequisite for stopping the bombing. So where do the rebels get off refusing to accede to a request from the very organization that authorized the bombing in the first place? They should be told in no uncertain terms that, if they’re not prepared to negotiate with Col. Gadhafi’s representatives, NATO’s support in the air and at sea will cease.
Retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie was the first commander of UN peacekeeping forces in Sarajevo.
:: Article nr. 78509 sent on 11-jun-2011 19:18 ECT
www.uruknet.info?p=78509
Link: www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/natos-libya-hope-strategy-is-bombi
ng/article2054254/
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m78544&hd=&size=1&l=e
An open letter to the African Union for feasible and practical action on the Libyan Crisis
By Fazal Rahman, Ph.D.
June 11, 2011
Note: The following letter, which is self-explanatory, was emailed to various officials of the African Union, whose email addresses were available on its web site, on June 8, 2011. So far, I have received no response and none is expected. In the sinister post-communist imperialist dominated world reality, there are unprecedented types and levels of the mutilation, distortion, perversion, and atrophy of human soul, spirit, intellect, reason, rationality, justice, and truth; not only in the imperialist countries, but worldwide. Almost everyone is absorbed in worshipping money, things, and power, and has no time, courage, or desire to see the nature of this reality and what is going on in it, including to themselves. In spite of knowing all this, the author considers it his duty and responsibility to do what is essential to be done by the requirements of authentic and un-mutilated human soul, spirit, intellect, and rationality. That is why he wrote this letter and sent it to the African Union.
An open letter to the African Union for feasible and practical action on the Libyan Crisis
I am an interdisciplinary researcher and writer. I am writing this letter about yet another great Western imperialist crime and atrocity against yet another Third World country, Libya, which is one of the most important members of the African Union (AU), in the formation and funding of which, the Libyan Leader Muammar Gadhafi had played a key role. In spite of his crucial practical support to the African National Congress (ANC) in South Africa, against the apartheid regime, as well as to many other African and Third World nations and national liberation movements around the world, some AU members, including South Africa, voted for the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1973 of 2011, while some others abstained. That resolution was a self-evident Western imperialist and colonialist plot to invade Libya, overthrow its legitimate government, replace it with a puppet regime, and establish much greater control over its huge energy and other resources and wealth. This has been obvious to every person, even with a minimum of intelligence, common sense, and knowledge of the history of imperialism and colonialism, especially in Africa that suffered the most brutal and devastating forms of them, from which it is still struggling to recover. It is simply not possible or credible that the African leaders could not see through this demonic imperialist plot. The only explanation for their actions and non-actions is that they chose to collaborate with the US and NATO imperialism in this great historical moment of truth, in this great historical moment of test. It is indeed a great shame for the mankind in general and African Union in particular that such great imperialist crime and atrocity is not only being allowed to be committed, but was voted for by some members of the African Union, among others, at the UNSC.
I wrote an in-depth article, "Gadhafi, Libya, counter-revolution, and the imperialist pack of hyenas", on March 25, 2011, on this matter, which has been published on many web sites in the US, UK, China, Pakistan, Ghana, and Nigeria. Following is a web link to it on one of those sites:
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2011/03/27/gadhafi-libya
-counter-revolution-and-the-pack-of-imperialist-hyenas-by-fa ...
For your convenience, I am also sending it in the attachment with this email.
At the current stage, the greatest danger lies in the possible invasion of Libya by the ground forces of NATO. They have already stretched and violated the UNSC Resolution 1973 in every possible way, with impunity. The least African Union can do now is to counter that very real danger by a credible threat of its own, as the US and the West only understand and pay attention to force and the language of force. African Union now has the absolute duty and responsibility to publicly declare that if there is an invasion of Libya by the NATO ground forces, the African Union will send its own ground forces to counter them and to prevent further violations of UNSC Resolution 1973 and more slaughters of Libyan and African people. Such a position is quite feasible and practicable. It will also elevate the African Union to high moral, political, and rational ground and will boost its international prestige enormously. It is almost certain that if the African Union takes such a principled and firm stand, powerful countries, like China and Russia, will also put their weight behind it. This is now the only effective way to thwart the imperialist aggression and its plot of plunder, robbery, and colonialism of a fellow African Union country.
I request that this proposal be presented to the highest officials of the African Union and given the most serious consideration.
Sincerely,
Fazal Rahman, Ph.D.
Email: Unpollutedfaz@aol.com
June 8, 2011
:: Article nr. 78544 sent on 12-jun-2011 01:09 ECT
www.uruknet.info?p=78544
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen