Updates on Libyan war: April 26
====
U.S. Discusses Providing Arms To NATO Allies To Prolong Libyan War
Catastrophic International Anarchy: Western Interventions Violate UN Charter
Libya Calls On African States For Help In Resisting NATO Attacks
Ukraine: Left-Wing Party Grants Gaddafi Anti-NATO Award
Libya: NATO Uses Yugoslav Model, Targets Government Infrastructure To Demoralize Nation
Russia’s Putin: Libya Being Destroyed By “So-Called Civilized Society”
Libyan Oil, Natural Gas Main Goals Of NATO’s Libyan War: Putin
Dangerous Intentions: Russian Foreign Minister Says NATO Takes Rebels’ Side
NATO’s African War: Nearly 4,000 Sorties, Over 1,600 Strikes
Economic War: NATO Invasion Of Libya Inevitable
NATO Playing With Fire In Libya: Analyst
NATO Intensifies Bombing Of Tripoli As Former Colonial Master Italy Enters War
NATO Escalates Bombing Assault, Libyans Fear Protracted War
Algeria Warns Foreign Intervention In Libya Can Destabilize Region
EU Troop Deployment Targets All Of Libya
NATO Nations’ Leaders: Gaddafi Must Die
Syria: “Targeted” Sanctions Or Preparation For New War?
====
U.S. Discusses Providing Arms To NATO Allies To Prolong Libyan War
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iTNq5eogxECfXa7fKtQKk0Gfcf_A?docId=CNG.17e3806625fad53ce9d38b16c2d5c8a2.321
Agence France-Presse
April 26, 2011
US, allies discuss munitions supplies for Libya strikes
WASHINGTON: Washington is in talks with NATO allies to ensure a sufficient supply of munitions for the Libya bombing campaign, the Pentagon said Tuesday, amid reports of a shortage of precision-guided arms.
European allies have not yet asked the US military to replenish stocks of precision-guided bombs or related munitions, spokesman Colonel Dave Lapan said.
“There haven’t been any requests yet. There have been discussions about munitions,” Lapan said.
“Some of the allies are talking about their munitions stores, their capabilities,” he said.
The discussions were “looking forward at, you know, the pace of operations, the munitions that they have, their capacity for procuring more, those types of things,” he added.
….
The Washington Post reported earlier this month that Britain, France and some other European countries involved in the air campaign were running low on supplies of precision-guided weapons.
….
Britain and France are carrying out about half of the bombing raids in Libya with four other countries — Belgium, Canada, Denmark and Norway — conducting the rest.
….
Italy said Monday it would join in the UN-mandated air strikes, designed to protect civilians from the forces of Libayn leader Moamer Kadhafi.
….
In talks on Tuesday at the Pentagon, Britain’s Defence Minister Liam Fox was due to discuss the air war in Libya with US Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
====
Catastrophic International Anarchy: Western Interventions Violate UN Charter
http://thecitizen.co.tz/magazines/32-political-platform/10361-operation-violates-un-charter.html
The Citizen (Tanzania)
April 26, 2011
Operation violates UN Charter
Mwesiga Baregu*
In this column last week, I expressed my concerns and misgivings about French intervention in Cote d’Ivoire as well as the Nato operation in Libya. Both of these operations have been undertaken under the general rubric of humanitarian intervention arising from the notion of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P).
In the last few days, however, some permanent members of the Security Council and others have openly questioned the intentions (regime change) and conduct of the Nato forces as well as the behaviour of the UN Secretary General in handling the Libyan situation.
It would seem that the imperialist aims of western powers have conspired with the ambitions of a Secretary General gunning for a second term to violate the fundamental purposes and principles of the UN enshrined in Chapter One of the Charter. (see especially, Ch. 1 Art. 2 (3&4). To gain some insights on the issues involved and in anticipation of points of contention that are likely to arise in the ensuing debate, I provide a brief background.
The notion of (R2P), arising out of a 2001 report The Responsibility to Protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), revolves around the rather dubious and still evolving idea that sovereign states have the primary responsibility to protect and defend their own citizens from avoidable catastrophe. However, when states are unwilling or unable to do so, that responsibility must be borne by the broader community of states.
The concern to protect people from extreme forms of suffering such as mass murder, large-scale torture, massive disappearances, starvation, etc. is essentially a post-Cold War phenomenon. It became particularly pronounced in the wake of the crises in Bosnia and Somalia in the early 1990s, the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, the Kosovo campaign in 1999 as well as Srebrenica in 1995.
In the wake of these crises ‘Responsibility to protect’ has since evolved into the controversial doctrine of “humanitarian intervention” which has raised so much debate and discussion in the international community on a number of contentious issues.
At the theoretical level the debate raises concerns about the eventuality of the principle of the sovereign right of exclusive jurisdiction within states and non-intervention between them, which lies at the core of the United Nations Charter. At the same time, the debate acknowledges the equally important principle of the right of people to protection (by the international community?) from gross human rights violations enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Can the two principles be reconciled?
At the practical level one encounters numerous and quite controversial questions such as: who is to decide when to intervene, at what point in time, for what reasons, by whom, with what mandate and objectives, with what means, for how long, etc. it should be noted that the conceptual and operational are not exclusive domains.
Indeed failure to address and resolve some of the conceptual difficulties has resulted in serious disagreements in the UN between those members up-holding the sovereignty principle as primary to the UN and those propagating human rights as a fundamental moral principle….
At the centre of the controversies are at least two fundamental questions. One question is whether, in principle, within the spirit and letter of the present UN Charter, the UN Security Council can defend state sovereignty and promote intervention at the same time.
The second question is whether humanitarian intervention is, in fact, a smokescreen for unilateral or coalitional intervention of the powerful states in the weaker states in pursuit of their national interest (as happened in Iraq (2003) and to some extent in Kosovo) thus rendering the UN system, a form of ‘organised hypocrisy’ as recently described in a book by Stephen Krasner.
It is largely for these reasons the ICISS adopted the term ‘intervention’ discarding the ‘humanitarian’ part in acknowledgement of the fact that “…states seldom intervene for purely humanitarian reasons” The commission thus defines intervention as “action taken against a state or its leaders, without its or their consent, for purposes which are claimed to be humanitarian or protective”.
Given the mission creep in Libya the UN is embarked upon a slippery slope to potentially catastrophic international anarchy!
*Professor Mwesiga Baregu lectures at Saut
====
Libya Calls On African States For Help In Resisting NATO Attacks
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5h5ILBcgW4MuutFcywzx3RzIG1XzQ?docId=6672531
Associated Press
April 26, 2011
Libya’s foreign minister calls on African leaders for help to deal with NATO attacks
ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia: Libya’s foreign minister has called on Africa’s leaders to help his country resist NATO’s intervention.
Speaking on Tuesday at the African Union Peace and Security Council ministerial meeting on Libya, Abdelati al-Obeidi called for a meeting between heads of states of the African Union member countries to look for ways “to face the external forces.”
The AU has denounced the U.N.-sanctioned military action in Libya, saying it undermines attempts at finding an African solution to an African problem.
====
Ukraine: Left-Wing Party Grants Gaddafi Anti-NATO Award
http://en.rian.ru/world/20110426/163718107.html
Russian Information Agency Novosti
April 26, 2011
Ukrainian far-left party awards Gaddafi anti-NATO award
Kiev: Ukraine’s far-left Progressive Socialist Party said on Tuesday it has delivered an award to the Libyan embassy in Kiev naming Muammar Gaddafi a “soldier of anti-NATO resistance.”
The Marxist-Leninist party fiercely criticized attempts by the last Ukrainian leadership to join NATO and supports the closer integration of Ukraine with Russia and Belarus.
“Today, the central committee of the Ukrainian Progressive Socialist Party unanimously awarded Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi with a ‘soldier of anti-NATO resistance’ award for his heroic fight to protect the Libyan people from NATO aggression,” the party said in a statement.
….
====
Libya: NATO Uses Yugoslav Model, Targets Government Infrastructure To Demoralize Nation
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/world/middleeast/27strategy.html
New York Times
April 26, 2011
NATO Says It Is Broadening Attacks on Libya Targets
Thom Shanker
-“It was when we went in and began to disturb important and symbolic sites in Belgrade, and began to bring to a halt the middle-class life in Belgrade, that Milosevic’s own people began to turn on him.”
WASHINGTON: NATO planners say the allies are stepping up attacks on palaces, headquarters, communications centers and other prominent institutions supporting the Libyan government, a shift of targets that is intended to weaken Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s grip on power and frustrate his forces in the field.
Officials in Europe and in Washington said that the strikes were meant to reduce the government’s ability…link by link, the command, communications and supply chains required for sustaining military operations.
The broadening of the alliance’s targets comes at a time when the rebels and the government in Libya have been consolidating their positions along more static front lines, raising concerns of a prolonged stalemate….
Strikes on significant bulwarks of Colonel Qaddafi’s power over recent days included bombing his residential compound in the heart of the capital, Tripoli — an array of bunkers that are also home to administrative offices and a military command post — as well as knocking state television briefly off the air.
If the new approach effectively cripples Colonel Qaddafi’s ability to command his military and visibly erodes his legitimacy, NATO strategists say, it may eventually persuade him to flee into exile — or it might prompt someone in his inner circle to force him out.
The strike on Colonel Qaddafi’s palace and command center was denounced by Libyan officials as an assassination attempt….Pentagon officials said the mission was mounted against a legitimate military target, and noted that it was carried out by F-16 jets from Norway….
For now, they said, the armed Predator drone aircraft being used in Libya have been flying over rebel-held towns that are under attack or are threatened by loyalist forces — not over the capital.
But officials acknowledged that the alliance is turning to intelligence based on cellular phone and radio intercepts that might indicate which barracks, buildings or compounds are serving as the government’s hidden command posts.
….
NATO put its new campaign plan in place over the past week or more, but so far the North African climate has not been cooperative. The alliance had intended to step up airstrikes on prominent institutional targets over this past weekend, but the effort was postponed because of bad weather.
In interviews, NATO officials acknowledged that overall, their air campaign had been frustratingly slow in taking shape after a vigorous start. But they said it was following a carefully planned step-by-step progression spanning the front lines, the middle echelons of the supply chain and now the rear areas, mostly in the capital, where the centralized command and control institutions are located.
The heavy strikes by American cruise missiles and warplanes across the country that began the campaign were aimed mainly at crippling air defense systems so allied combat jets could fly without hindrance. The American military turned over command of the mission to the alliance once it had established a no-fly zone for Libyan warplanes. NATO strikes then focused on the front lines of the fighting, to suppress government forces’ attacks on the rebels….
….
As the front lines began to stabilize — some senior officials describe the current situation as a stalemate — NATO warplanes tried to smash the supply lines snaking toward government troops in the field, which were calling for ammunition and reinforcements as they besieged rebel-held cities.
So last week, as Western political leaders pronounced that they had no intention of allowing Colonel Qaddafi to remain in power indefinitely, the alliance turned its attention to a target set of static military and government structures.
“Now we are going after his rear echelon,” one NATO official said. “We are going after his ability to command and control his forces — his headquarters, his command posts, his communications — all those things that allow him to coordinate his attacks at the front.”
Military officials privately acknowledge that removing Colonel Qaddafi from power is the desired secondary effect of striking at state television and other symbols of his…rule. “His people may see the futility of continued resistance,” one Pentagon official said.
….
Senior officers who served in NATO’s previous air war, fought in 1999…said that the current air campaign over Libya drew on lessons from Kosovo.
Gen. John P. Jumper, who commanded United States Air Force units in Europe during the Kosovo campaign, recalled that allied “air power was getting its paper graded on the number of tanks killed” — even though taking out armored vehicles one by one was never going to halt “ethnic cleansing.”
So NATO began to hit high-profile institutional targets in Belgrade, the Serbian capital, instead of forces in the field. While they were legitimate military targets, General Jumper said, destroying them also had the effect of undermining popular support for the Serbian leader, Slobodan Milosevic.
“It was when we went in and began to disturb important and symbolic sites in Belgrade, and began to bring to a halt the middle-class life in Belgrade, that Milosevic’s own people began to turn on him,” General Jumper said. “They began to question why the whole thing in Kosovo was going on, because it was ruining the country.”
====
Russia’s Putin: Libya Being Destroyed By “So-Called Civilized Society”
http://en.rian.ru/world/20110426/163721016.html
Russian Information Agency Novosti
April 26, 2011
Putin slams NATO on Libya attacks
Copenhagen: Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin sharply criticized NATO’s military actions in Libya on Tuesday, saying the North African state was being illegally destroyed by “so-called civilized society.”
“We must act within international law, with an awareness of our responsibility, with concern for peaceful civilians,” Putin told a news conference in Copenhagen after talks with his Danish counterpart. “And when the whole of so-called civilized society gangs up on one small country, destroying infrastructure that has been built over generations, is it good or bad? Personally I do not like it.”
This is not the first time Putin has publicly criticized the NATO-led intervention in Libya. In late March he made international headlines by likening a UN Security Council resolution to enforce a no-fly zone in the country to a “call to a medieval crusade.”
At today’s news conference, the premier also criticized the Western coalition for dropping two guided bombs on Gaddafi’s compound in central Tripoli last week.
“What kind of no-fly zone is this if they are striking palaces every night?” Putin said. “What do they need to bomb palaces for? To drive out the mice?”
….
Putin lashed out at the West for attacking Libya in the interests of oil.
“Libya has the biggest oil resources in Africa and the fourth largest gas resources,” Putin said during a news conference in Copenhagen. “It raises the question: isn’t that the main object of interest to those operating there.”
Russia abstained from the UN Security Council resolution to impose a no-fly zone over Libya. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has been less critical than Putin of the Libya intervention and publicly called Putin’s crusade remarks “unacceptable.”
The Russian premier made a further dig at the West in answer to a journalist’s question about international media criticism of him running in the 2012 presidential elections.
“Future presidential candidates in Russia do not need support from abroad. They need support from the Russian people,” he said
Putin, who served two presidential terms from 2000 to 2008, is widely expected to run again in 2012.
—————————————————————————
http://rt.com/politics/putin-rasmussen-visit-denmark/
RT
April 26, 2011
Putin states the West has no legal right to execute Gaddafi
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin declared that the Western forces taking part in the military operation in Libya are not entitled to assassinate Muammar Gaddafi, as doing so is against international law.
The Russian premier noted that UN Security Council resolution 1973 allowed for enforcing a no-fly zone over the North African state. But the coalition forces are “bombing palaces” every night.
“Are they exterminating mice this way?”, he said, adding that civilians are being killed.
Initially, Putin noted, it was claimed that there was no plan to eliminate the Libyan leader. However, some officials are now saying the opposite, he observed.
“Who allowed them to do so?”, he demanded, speaking at a joint media conference with his Danish counterpart in Copenhagen. “Has there been a court decision? Who has the right to execute a human, no matter how good or bad one is? But everyone keeps silent.”
The Russian premier stressed that the coalition states should act in accordance with international law, while clearly realizing the responsibility they bear, in particular in caring for civilians.
“When the entire so-called ‘civilized’ community, with all its might, [attacks] a small country, eliminates its infrastructure…I do not know whether it is good or not. But I do not like it,” he said.
Putin also noted that there are many countries where the situation is similar to Libya – countries that are far from democratic and with internal tensions resulting in violence.
“Should we interfere everywhere? Should we be bombing them, too?” he questioned.
….
====
Libyan Oil, Natural Gas Main Goals Of NATO’s Libyan War: Putin
http://en.rian.ru/world/20110426/163720280.html
Russian Information Agency Novosti
April 26, 2011
Putin says Libyan oil main goal of NATO campaign
Copenhagen: Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday that Libya’s oil resources were the main object of the NATO-led military campaign in the country.
“Libya has the biggest oil resources in Africa and the fourth largest gas resources,” Putin said during a news conference in Copenhagen. “It raises the question: isn’t this the main object of interest to those operating there.”
—————————————————————————
http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/04/26/49505819.html
Voice of Russia
April 26, 2011
The West has no right to kill Gaddafi – Putin
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has lashed out at the West over attempts to do away with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.
Addressing reporters in Copenhagen after talks with his Danish counterpart Lars Løkke Rasmussen on Tuesday, the Russian premier said that despite earlier assurances by Western nations that they did not want to kill Gaddafi, they are now saying “yes, we trying to kill him”. “Who took on the right to execute this man? Has there been any trial?” he wondered.
Mr. Putin condemned the bombings of the presidential residence in Tripoli, saying that they went far beyond the “no-fly zone” resolution passed by the UN Security Council in March. He feels that Libya’s rich oil deposits are the real reason behind active foreign interference in Libyan affairs.
====
Dangerous Intentions: Russian Foreign Minister Says NATO Takes Rebels’ Side
http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=16185873&PageNum=1
Itar-Tass
April 25, 2011
RF suspects West, NATO take Libyan rebels’ side – Lavrov
Speaking at a press conference on Monday, Lavrov said the African Union’s initiative on the peaceful settlement had been rejected.
“Inevitably suspicions occur that the Western states and NATO [they coordinate the implementation of Resolution 1973] took rebels’ side.”
“These are dangerous intentions,” the Russian minister said.
====
NATO’s African War: Nearly 4,000 Sorties, Over 1,600 Strikes
http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/pdf_2011_04/20110426_110426-oup-update.pdf
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
April 26, 2011
NATO and Libya
JFC Naples, SHAPE, NATO HQ
….
Air Operations
Since the beginning of the NATO operation (31 March 2011, 08.00GMT) a total of 3,858 sorties and 1,606 strike sorties have been conducted.
Sorties conducted 25 April: 133
Strike sorties conducted 25 April: 56
….
25 April: In vicinity of Tripoli: 1 Tank; 3 surface-to-air missile launchers; 3 infantry fighting vehicles; 1
rocket launcher; 1 vehicle depot:.
In vicinity of Misurata: 1 surface-to-air missile training facility.
In vicinity of Sirte: 3 ammunition depots.
In the vicinity of Al-Khums: 2 Tanks; 2 infantry fighting vehicles.
….
Arms Embargo Activities
A total of 19 ships under NATO command are actively patrolling the Central Mediterranean.
30 Vessels were hailed on 25 April to determine destination and cargo. 3 boardings (no diversion) were conducted.
A total of 640 vessels have been hailed, 17 boardings and 5 diversions have been conducted since the beginning of arms embargo operations.
….
====
Economic War: NATO Invasion Of Libya Inevitable
http://print.dailymirror.lk/opinion1/41711.html
Daily Mirror (Sri Lanka)
April 22, 2011
Economic war: NATO invasion of Libya inevitable
Ameen Izzadeen
-The imperialists will not change their habits. They want to make the poor poorer so that they can be richer. When they foresee a decline in their power either because of an economic crisis or because of a military threat, they resort to wars and interventions in resource-rich countries.
Their modus operandi has been the same throughout history. They fund and sustain opposition groups in target countries before they invade it.
-The British-French decision to send military advisors reminds one of the Vietnam War. The United States in 1961 sent some 400 troops to advise the South Vietnamese military. But a decade later the US troop presence in Vietnam rose to 500,000.
-Well, a provocation is all that the imperialists want so that they can launch an all-out war and start plundering Libya in a bid to boost their flagging economies. The US government has allocated 700 billion dollars for defence in next year’s budget at the expense of cuts in education and health while the budget deficit is a gaping 1.6 trillion dollars.
It is easier for a camel to go through an eye of a needle than for a rich man (read imperialists) to enter the Kingdom of God. As the Christian world marks Good Friday today, this saying of Jesus Christ is totally lost on today’s greed-driven imperialists who are gearing up to gobble Libya’s resources.
Libya was relatively a peaceful country with a high literacy rate and advanced health and education facilities. On last year’s Human Development Index, it was ranked 53rd — ahead of 116 countries. Dissent was not unheard of in Libya. Muammar Gaddafi had a way of dealing with it. He rehabilitated the dissidents. Even pro-al Qaeda elements who had resorted to terrorism were rehabilitated and pardoned. None accused Gaddafi of killing political opponents.
If not for the western intervention or interference, the present crisis would also have been solved by peaceful means or by a minimum use of violence. The crisis is no more a Libyan crisis. The imperialist forces — the United States, Britain, France and Italy — have hijacked it. The Libyan rebels merely do what the imperialists order them to do.
Unfortunately, the rebels seem to have not understood that the imperialists have little interest in the well-being of the Libyan people. The imperialists only want to further their agenda of militarily dominating the world to plunder the resources of the weaker nations.
The imperialists will not change their habits. They want to make the poor poorer so that they can be richer. When they foresee a decline in their power either because of an economic crisis or because of a military threat, they resort to wars and interventions in resource-rich countries.
Their modus operandi has been the same throughout history. They fund and sustain opposition groups in target countries before they invade it. The opposition groups support the imperialists in the hope that they would be made the rulers. This was how the imperialist British colonised India, Sri Lanka and the Ottoman empire’s Arab provinces in the past. This was how the United States colonized Iraq and Afghanistan in the recent past. The same plan is now being executed in Libya by the imperialist West on the pretext of humanitarian intervention.
That the war in Libya comes at a time when the Western economies are facing a bleak future is no coincidence. The United States’ economy is in the doldrums with its debt burden rising to a catastrophic 14 trillion dollars — that is 14 with 12 zeroes.
What is more alarming to the Americans and the rest of the world is that the signs of recovery are few and far between with international rating agency Standard and Poor downgrading the outlook on the US sovereign bond from stable to negative. In fact, the real situation is much worse than what Standard and Poor had rated. A Chinese rating agency had commented that western rating agencies were highly politicized and therefore usually cushioned the ratings for Western economies. The negative rating has alarmed China, the biggest investor (1.5 trillion dollars) in US sovereign bonds. China is worried about the United States’ ability to sustain the sovereign bonds amid a huge budget deficit and public debt.
The economic crises facing Britain and France are no better. To overcome the situation, the imperialists resort to wars. In the short-run, wars in the Middle East may increase oil prices and affect economic growth but once the wars are over, the plunder begins, boosting the economies of the imperialist nations. Last week, leaked documents in Britain showed how the Tony Blair government discussed Iraq invasion plans with British oil giants a year before the war actually began. It was Iraq yesterday and it is Libya today, tomorrow, as the imperialists’ economies face further crises, it may even be Saudi Arabia, no matter how servile or submissive its rulers are to the imperialists.
In Libya, the imperialists have taken a step closer to a ground invasion, interpreting UN resolutions 1973 to their advantage. France and Britain have decided to send small groups of military advisors to assist the rebels, while the Western media deliberately exaggerate the casualty figures in Misrata and report largely one-sided stories. In an interview with the Guardian newspaper, a British non-governmental fact-finding team returning from Libya accused the Western media of distortion, manipulation and “failing in their duty to report the conflict truthfully”.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/19/gaddafi-violence-exaggerated-british-group?CMP=twt_gu)/.
A video posted on youtube shows NATO-guided rebels lynching a captured soldier in public while a shocked crowd pleads for clemency. A comment on the video asked where the CNN was when this horror was taking place. If only Gaddafi’s forces had done such an act, the Western media would have repeatedly shown the gory video.
The British-French decision to send military advisors reminds one of the Vietnam War. The United States in 1961 sent some 400 troops to advise the South Vietnamese military. But a decade later the US troop presence in Vietnam rose to 500,000. It is a matter of time before tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of imperialist soldiers roam the length and breadth of Libya. Some reports say groups of western military officers are already in Libya guiding the rebels’ war. Gaddafi’s government has warned NATO that it will deem any ground troop deployment as a hostile military act.
Well, a provocation is all that the imperialists want so that they can launch an all-out war and start plundering Libya in a bid to boost their flagging economies. The US government has allocated 700 billion dollars for defence in next year’s budget at the expense of cuts in education and health while the budget deficit is a gaping 1.6 trillion dollars. But how long can the imperialists depend on wars and plunder for economic growth? The breaking point is not far away.
====
NATO Playing With Fire In Libya: Analyst
http://rt.com/news/libya-nato-rebels-gaddafi/
RT
April 26, 2011
NATO playing with fire in Libya – analyst
Italy has approved the use of its fighter jets in NATO’s airstrikes in Libya, despite its earlier refusal to join the bombings. Fighting perseveres in the besieged town of Misrata in western Libya.
According to the Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, from now on his country will participate in NATO bombing raids in order to better protect Libyan civilians. He added that Italian raids will only target the military.
Italy had previously refused to take part in NATO airstrikes in Libya given its 40-year-long colonial rule over the country.
Violence has yet to subside in Libya, torn between the rebel-held east and the west, controlled by pro-Gaddafi supporters.
Six people were killed in the town of Misrata on Monday as a result of a shelling blamed on Gaddafi forces, Al Jazeera television reports.
NATO airstrikes on Monday badly damaged Colonel Gaddafi’s compound in the capital Tripoli. According to the Libyan government, the attack was an attempt on Gaddafi’s life and three people were killed.
The Western alliance confirmed that it has intensified attacks on targets linked to the Gaddafi government. A NATO spokesman announced that the compound was targeted as a military command post, AP reports.
According to Igor Khokhlov from the Moscow-based Institute of World Economy and International Relations, NATO is playing a dangerous game in Libya.
“What we see now [are] NATO countries and their leadership so obsessed with getting Gaddafi out of power that they do not actually care who the rebels are,” he said. “What we see now in Maghreb countries, in Tunisia, in Egypt and in Libya, where Al Qaeda terrorist cells are extremely effective, is that those cells could easily come into power.”
====
NATO Intensifies Bombing Of Tripoli As Former Colonial Master Italy Enters War
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15027770,00.html
Deutsche Welle
April 25, 2011
Further blasts rock Tripoli as Italy agrees to boost Libya operations
More blasts hit Tripoli on Monday night, at the same time that Italy agreed to step up involvement in missions against military targets….
There were explosions in and around Tripoli on Monday night, a day after a NATO strike destroyed a building in the residential compound of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi.
Explosions were reported in the east of the city and in the Bir Al-Ghanam district, which lies 50 kilometers (30 miles) to the southwest, late on Monday.
Military and civilian sites were hit according to Libyan state television, which said there had been casualties but gave no further details.
Italy was already providing bases and reconaissanceMeanwhile, Italy said it would increase its level of involvement in Libya, being prepared to carry out “targeted missions against military objects in Libyan territory to protect the civilian population.”
Until now, Rome has provided military bases and reconnaissance planes for operations in the country, a former Italian colony. A statement from the office of Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said he had informed US President Barack Obama by telephone that Italy had “decided to respond positively” to an appeal by NATO leaders.
NATO forces had struck Gadhafi’s Bab al-Aziziyah compound in Tripoli early Monday, while loud explosions were also heard elsewhere in the capital.
A government official showed foreign journalists around the ruined building a few hours after the attack. He claimed 45 people had been wounded in the bombing, 15 of them seriously….”It was an attempt to assassinate Colonel Gadhafi,” he said.
Seif al-Islam, Gadhafi’s son, described the bombing as “cowardly.”
Intensification in bombing raids
NATO forces appear to have stepped up the pace of air strikes in Tripoli in recent days.
Heavy explosions shook the center of Tripoli shortly after midnight on Monday. Smoke was seen rising from the building at around 3 a.m. local time, watched by dozens of people shouting pro-Gadhafi slogans.
Libyan state television broadcasts were briefly cut off after the bombing raid.
A meeting room opposite Gadhafi’s own office was badly damaged by the blast. African leaders had met there two weeks ago to put forward a peace plan that was accepted by the regime, but turned down by the rebels.
The United States, Britain and France have said they will not stop their air campaign over Libya until Gadhafi leaves power.
….
Author: Joanna Impey, Richard Connor (AFP, dpa, Reuters)
Editor: Rob Turner
====
NATO Escalates Bombing Assault, Libyans Fear Protracted War
http://en.trend.az/regions/met/arabicr/1867118.html
Deutsche Presse-Agentur
April 26, 2011
NATO resumes airstrikes; some Libyans fear months-long fighting
NATO launched fresh airstrikes to weaken Libyan leader Moamer Gaddafi’s forces, state media reported Tuesday, as many Libyans have begun to fear that the fighting between rebels and government forces will go on for months, DPA reported.
Frustrations and fears were coming to the surface among residents in the coastal city of Derna, located between the rebel stronghold of Benghazi and Tobruk town.
“If we don’t see progress soon, people will get very frustrated,” said Iman El Kuf, who used to work in the tourism industry in Derna.
“There are already pockets of resistance against the rebel movement. After dark, they come out. Perhaps if the rebels do not advance soon, others might join them,” she said.
Mohamed Founi complained that many people can’t find jobs and that schools were still closed. He said one litre of oil, which was sold for 1.5 Libyan dinars (1.2 dollars) before the revolution now costs up to 3.5 dinars.
“That’s fine if you are in Benghazi, the centre of the movement, but here, we are just waiting and waiting,” said Founi.
NATO has been in control of military operations in Libya for more than three weeks….
State media reported that “foreign ships have attacked a communications cable off the Libyan coast, cutting communications to several eastern cities.”
The cable connected Gaddafi’s hometown of Sirte with the key oil towns of Ras Lanuf and Brega. Local and international calls to many cities east of the capital, Tripoli, have not been possible for weeks.
NATO carried out airstrikes in Tripoli Monday targeting a communications headquarters….
Government officials said the attack on the buildings in Gaddafi’s Bab Al Aziziya compound was an assassination attempt.
….
Speaking to the German Press Agency dpa by telephone, rebels spokesman Abdul Hafiz Ghoga said…”the employment of Predator drones has taken the NATO air campaign into another phase.”
====
Algeria Warns Foreign Intervention In Libya Can Destabilize Region
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-04/26/c_13845509.htm
Xinhua News Agency
April 26, 2011
Algeria warns against foreign intervention in region through Libyan conflict
ALGIERS: Algerian Foreign Minister Mourad Medelci warned of the existence of foreign forces seeking to break the region through the Libyan crisis, stressing Algeria’s rejection of any foreign intervention under any pretext.
Medelci told the local Echorouk newspaper in an interview posted on Monday that “if we compare Libya and some other Arab countries, we would conclude that as soon as the Libyan conflict was sparked, foreign forces intervened, contrary to what happened in Tunisia and Egypt.”
He warned that “the split of Libya may be a target of some forces,” yet he praised “the position of Libyans, either in Benghazi or in Tripoli, who insist on keeping Libya united.”
Medelci said Algeria fears Libya may become “a new Iraq or Afghanistan.”
The fear is increasing, because terrorism takes advantage of the spread of weapons. Al-Qaida has recently announced the establishment of several emirates in Libya, he said.
Algeria has warned for several times that the proliferation of weapons in Libya would lead to an escalation of terrorist attacks in the region.
Medelci further added that his country has paid a high price to restore its security, political and economy stability, stressing that “the repercussions of what happening in Libya is perceived as affecting neighboring countries, Algeria included.”
The official warned that the deteriorating security situation in Libya can encourage terrorist activities in the region which would have disastrous consequences on all neighboring countries.
Medelci reiterated Algeria’s position in favor of a political solution to end the crisis in Libya. “Libya’s unity should be achieved by the Libyans themselves, without any foreign intervention. Libyans can do it in the interest of the people, in the interest of reconciliation between them, and in the interest of the whole region. A political solution is still the only way out to the crisis,” Medelci said.
As for the possibility that the transitional council would take power in Libya, Medelci said “For now, we don’t think it’s possible,” adding “I want to seize this opportunity to hail Algeria’s stand regarding Libya’s unity, no matter what side comes to power.”
Medelci said his country wholly backs the African Union’s mediation drive to find an early solution to the current conflict in Libya.
====
EU Troop Deployment Targets All Of Libya
http://rt.com/news/eu-troops-aid-libya/
RT
April 26, 2011
EU troops would guard aid throughout Libya – report
The German newspaper Bild has given a sneak peek of operation EUFOR Libya, the plan to use EU ground troops to protect humanitarian convoys….
The plan, fist announced in mid-April, provides for troops of the European Union Military Staff (EUFOR), to perform guard duties for organizations involved in relief efforts in Libya….
The 60-page concept of the mission, according to Bild, sets the whole territory of Libya as a lawful operative zone for the EU force. The troops would secure sea ports and airports, defend humanitarian aid convoys from possible attacks and supply fuel to aid organizations.
The document does not set out the exact number of troops to be sent to Libya, but earlier comments from European officials pointed to 1,000 as the top limit. The mission would have a set duration of four months.
The force involved in the operation would include several companies of regular foot soldiers as well as minesweepers, combat divers, air traffic dispatchers and aerial teams for the evacuation of wounded personnel, the newspaper says.
Risk assessment of the mission considers the possible threat to the force as ranging from high to critical. The greatest threats include terrorist attacks and drawing EU troops into tribal violence.
The international involvement in the civil conflict in Libya under a UN mandate started on March 19. The mission, which has a stated goal to prevent the escalation of violence and protect the civilian population, has been under increased criticism, as skeptics see the NATO-led force acting as a de facto party to the conflict.
Russia, one of the critics, says NATO’s anti-Gaddafi and pro-rebel actions set a bad example for all opposition groups in the region.
“Alas, [the West’s message] may be contagious, because it is expressed in other regional countries with the hope that the international community will come to their assistance if the situation exacerbates,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Monday.
“In fact, this is an invitation to a series of civil wars,” he added.
Earlier, several EU nations announced that they will send military advisors to aid rebel forces, which many commentators believe is a violation of the UN Security Council resolution, which allows only an aerial operation in Libya.
====
NATO Nations’ Leaders: Gaddafi Must Die
http://rt.com/politics/press/rossijskaya-gazeta/gaddafi-target-killing-discussed/en/
RT
April 26, 2011
Gaddafi must die
Yevgeny Shestakov
It is naive to think that the participants in the military operation against Libya have never discussed Colonel Gaddafi’s fate.
It is hard to believe that the leader of the Jamahiriya will be judged by an international tribunal. None of the Western leaders actually say they doubt that events will take such a civilized turn. However, one can only guess as to what is actually discussed behind closed doors, far from the vigilant “human rights-protecting” ears. The longer the NATO operation in Libya continues, the less obvious are its results and the more frequently the NATO generals call Gaddafi their legitimate target.
In reality, the adopted UN resolution does not raise the issue of the demise of the leader of the Jamahiriya. But neither is there any mention of legal guarantees of his security. The resolution does not allow a hunt for Gaddafi, personally, but does not exclude his death as a result of a well-planned tragic accident.
Information about how these types of incidents, which at the intent of the international coalition participants will lead to the demise of the Tripoli regime, will look appear increasingly often in media reports.
For example, British Secretary of Defence, Liam Fox, has flatly called Gaddafi “a target for air attacks”. In turn, the UK Foreign Secretary, William Hague, has permitted the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for the destruction of the leader of the Jamahiriya – for the murder, as a prisoner of war, sentenced to death without the possibility of an appeal. This plan is also supported by a number of US Republican senators. They believe that only Gaddafi’s death will bring victory to the rebels.
Talk about the colonel’s physical destruction were particularly prevalent after it became clear that the previous plan, which hoped for the betrayal of the Jamahiriya leader at the hands of close associates, had failed.
Some Libyan ministers did, indeed, flee to the West. But most of the army remained loyal to Gaddafi. London and Washington officials say that despite the adopted sanctions, which have allowed the freezing of around $60 billion of the regime’s money, Gaddafi’s relatives continue to have enough funds to keep their supporters and to fund military operations. This means that no betrayals are to be expected from the people loyal to the colonel.
The strike delivered by NATO aircraft against the Bab al-Azizia residence where, as was stated by Tripoli, Gaddafi held his meetings, is regarded by some experts as a change in the tactics of the coalition forces.
Moreover, there is some speculation that during the bombing Gaddafi was in an underground bunker located under the damaged residence. As a result of the air strike, three buildings were destroyed. The press service of the Libyan government reported 45 people injured.
Unsettling reports for the coalition are coming in from the frontlines. The Libyan army has resumed the shelling of Misrata, Gaddafi’s envoys are recruiting mercenaries from Egypt to fight against rebel forces, and fierce battles have begun in the mountainous regions between the state army and the Berber territorial army. Libya’s official state TV channels report that Gaddafi’s supporters held a demonstration in the rebels’ capital of Benghazi.
Meanwhile, French President Nikolas Sarkozy, during his meeting with the head of the Libyan National Council in Paris, promised to visit Benghazi to raise the rebels’ morale.
British Prime Minister David Cameron may accompany him on his trip as “a formality”. It is possible that during their meeting with the rebels in Benghazi, the head of the British government and the French president will announce that the hunting season for Gaddafi and his relatives has officially begun.
====
Syria: “Targeted” Sanctions Or Preparation For New War?
http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/04/26/49485041.html
Voice of Russia
April 26, 2011
“Targeted” sanctions or a preparation for a new war?
Boris Volkhonsky
-Obama can easily cast away his image of a pacifist and become what all US presidents were in the last 60 something years – that is, a warmonger.
And then, the “shy war” against Muammar Gaddafi may look like a mild exercise. The real targets are not in Libya, they are elsewhere.
The White House has declared that it is going to impose “targeted” sanctions against Syria as a retaliation measure against the government’s crackdown on popular protests.
Sanctions could include a freeze on Syrian assets and a ban on business with the US.
“The brutal violence used by the government of Syria against its people is completely deplorable,” National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said. “The US is pursuing a range of possible policy options, including targeted sanctions, to respond to the crackdown and make clear that this behavior is unacceptable.”
The way the Syrian leadership is acting against its opponents is not definitely distinguishable from the actions of the Libyan leadership against the rebels. But the actions taken by the international community differ drastically.
Why so?
Syria has been a “culprit” in Western eyes for an even longer period than Libya. It has always been and still is the main opponent of Israel, and Israeli politicians never tire of insisting that the main target of Western actions in the Middle East should be Syria….
Then why did the White House resort to the lingo of “targeted sanctions”?
….
This time the situation in Syria does not seem to be much different. But the war in Libya has proved the futility of any outside interference, if the majority of the population stays firm behind its leader.
Now, what can the West do? The situation is dubious. On the one hand, “the culprits should be punished” – this is the motto of the “wonderful new world” promoted by Western “democracies” with the USA in the vanguard.
On the other hand, what are the levers for punishing the “culprit”? If it is not a new war, then there seem to be none in the Western hands.
Therefore, clinging to the lingo of “targeted” sanctions serves all possible ends.
It makes almost no difference for the present Syrian leadership. Its assets are quite secure in revenues where American banks have no voice at all. A ban on doing business with the US is also of limited importance – Syrians learned to do business outside the US long ago.
So, at the moment the decision to impose “targeted” sanctions against Syria does not demonstrate anything other from the impotence of the West to act in order to spread its so called “universal values” of democracy and human rights over the whole of mankind, or even over the regions that seem to top the West’s agenda – among them, the Middle East.
But this may change in a matter of months. The re-election of Barack Obama to a second term at this point can be regarded as an 80 percent probability. If and when the Republicans fail to come up with an electable candidate (and this is also of no less than an 80 percent probability), Barack Obama can easily forget about what he said and promised back in 2008. And in this case, the “targeted” sanctions can turn into what they are not meant to be now.
Now, this is only a way to demonstrate to the American public that Obama still can be regarded as a firm global leader. But later, when the need to demonstrate anything to the American public passes, Obama can easily cast away his image of a pacifist and become what all US presidents were in the last 60 something years – that is, a warmonger.
And then, the “shy war” against Muammar Gaddafi may look like a mild exercise. The real targets are not in Libya, they are elsewhere.
====
