The Daily Telegraph reports that the suicidal West is planning to overthrow the murderous – but anti-Khomeinic, non-Salafist – Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi using the justification that it fears he may use mustard gas to stay in power against rioters, many of them from enemy tribes, now displaying flags with crescents and stars as they march against him with the support of the Islamic Republic of Iran and of Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual guide:
Libya: West ready to use force against Col Gaddafi amid chemical weapon fears
David Cameron and other Western leaders are on the brink of ordering military action against Col Muammar Gaddafi amid fears that the Libyan dictator could use chemical weapons against his own people.
The Prime Minister disclosed that he would not rule out “the use of military assets” as Britain “must not tolerate this regime using military forces against its own people”. Britain and America are also thought to be considering arming rebel forces in Libya.
Adding to growing concern about the crumbling regime’s ability to commit last desperate acts of mass murder, British sources have disclosed that Libya still has stocks of mustard gas chemicals.
Mr Cameron told MPs that Britain and its allies were considering using fighter jets to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, patrolling and shooting down Libyan aircraft ordered to attack protesters.
The Pentagon announced that the Americans had begun “repositioning forces” around Libya to provide “flexibility”. The French also announced that they would back a possible military intervention with Nato partners.
The warnings were sounded after Gaddafi was accused of ordering Libyan aircraft to attack a radio station being used by rebels in the city of Benghazi. An arms depot being used by anti-government forces was also blown up in the town of Ajdabiya, 100 miles further south.
Meanwhile, Gaddafi appears to be following in Mubarak’s footsteps:
Libya towns fall to rebels as world moves to isolate Gaddafi
Libyan protestors have overrun several strongholds of Col Muammar Gaddafi in the western part of the country.
* Witness reports jet gunned down near Misrata and crew captured
* Geneva-German foreign minister proposes moratorium on all financial transfers to Libya for 60 days
* Libyan loyalists evicted from towns of al-Zawiyah and Nalut
Gaddafi loyalists had been evicted from Nalut, 145 miles west of Tripoli. “The city has been liberated since February 19. It has been run by a revolutionary committee named by the town’s communities,” said Shaban Abu Sitta, a local lawyer and member of a revolutionary committee.
Just a few years ago, multiculturalist Labour demagogue Tony Blair, whose sister-in-law Lauren Booth converted to Mohammedanism and has worn a hijab since her “holy experience” visiting the Islamic Republic of Iran, and whose wife – the prominent barrister Cheri Booth QC – has a fascinating habit of defending jihadists, was giving NATO secrets to Gaddafi and training his special forces (as well as struggling to secure the release of the Lockerbie bomber, something David Cameron has rightly, if cynically, decried):
Libya: Tony Blair agreed to train Gaddafi’s special forces in ‘deal in the desert’
Tony Blair used his final foreign trip as prime minister to sign a confidential deal with Muammar Gaddafi to train Libyan special forces and supply him with Nato secrets.
A copy of the accord obtained by The Daily Telegraph shows that the two leaders agreed to co-operate on defence matters in a range of areas, including exchanging information about defence structures and technology.
It was signed during the former Labour prime minister’s “Blair-well” tour of Africa in May 2007, in Gaddafi’s tent in the Libyan desert.
Included in the document was an agreement on “co-operation in the training of specialised military units, special forces and border security units”. They also signed up to “exchanges of information on Nato and EU military and civil security organisations”. The document was personally signed by Mr Blair and Gaddafi.
A passing reference to it was contained in a joint communiqué between the two countries, which was issued at the time and posted on the Foreign Office website before being removed a few weeks ago.
Meanwhile, Wikileaks reports (Hat Tip: Council of Conservative Citizens) that a prominent Jewish multiculturalist, the United States Ambassador to France and Monaco, Charles H. Rivkin, is hoping to pressure the French government into politically mobilising the violent and rapidly multiplying Maghrebi and black Mohammedans in France with the advice of President Sarkozy’s Commissioner for Equal Opportunities, Yazid Sabeg:
SUBJECT: EMBASSY PARIS - MINORITY ENGAGEMENT STRATEGYREF: A. SECSTATE 127215
¶B. PARIS 1714
Classified By: Ambassador Charles H. Rivkin, Reasons 1.4(b),(d).
¶1. (C/NF) SUMMARY: In keeping with France’s unique history
and circumstances, Embassy Paris has created a Minority
Engagement Strategy that encompasses, among other groups, the
French Muslim population and responds to the goals outlined
in reftel A. Our aim is to engage the French population at
all levels in order to amplify France’s efforts to realize
its own egalitarian ideals, thereby advancing U.S. national
interests. While France is justifiably proud of its leading
role in conceiving democratic ideals and championing human
rights and the rule of law, French institutions have not
proven themselves flexible enough to adjust to an
increasingly heterodox demography. We believe that if
France, over the long run, does not successfully increase
opportunity and provide genuine political representation for
its minority populations, France could become a weaker, more
divided country, perhaps more crisis-prone and
inward-looking, and consequently a less capable ally. To
support French efforts to provide equal opportunity for
minority populations, we will engage in positive discourse;
set a strong example; implement an aggressive youth outreach
strategy; encourage moderate voices; propagate best
practices; and deepen our understanding of the underlying
causes of inequality in France. We will also integrate the
efforts of various Embassy sections, target influential
leaders among our primary audiences, and evaluate both
tangible and intangible indicators of the success of our
strategy. END SUMMARY.
——————————————— —–
BACKGROUND: THE CRISIS OF REPRESENTATION IN FRANCE
——————————————— —–
¶2. (C/NF) France has long championed human rights and the
rule of law, both at home and abroad, and justifiably
perceives itself as a historic leader among democratic
nations. This history and self-perception will serve us well
as we implement the strategy outlined here, in which we press
France toward a fuller application of the democratic values
it espouses. This strategy is necessary because French
institutions have not proven themselves flexible enough to
adjust to the country’s increasingly heterodox demography.
Very few minorities hold leadership positions in France’s
public institutions. As President Sarkozy’s own Diversity
Czar Yazid Sabeg told Ambassador Rivkin in December, the
National Assembly “serves as a mirror of the crisis of
representation in France” (reftel B). The National Assembly,
among its 577 deputies, has a single black member from
metropolitan France (excluding its island territories), but
does not have any elected representatives of Muslim or Arab
extraction, though this minority group alone represents
approximately 10 percent of the population. The Senate has
two Muslim Senators (out of 343), but no black
representatives and only a few Senators hail from other
ethnic or religious minorities. Sabeg also noted that none
of France’s approximately 180 Ambassadors is black, and only
one is of North African descent. Despite Sarkozy’s
appointment of leaders such as Rachida Dati, Fidela Amara and
Rama Yade, minorities continue to confront a very thick glass
ceiling in France’s public institutions. The French media
remains overwhelmingly white, with only modest increases in
minority representation on camera for major news broadcasts.
Among French elite educational institutions, we are only
aware that Sciences Po has taken serious steps to integrate.
While slightly better represented in private organizations,
minorities in France lead very few corporations and
foundations. Thus the reality of French public life defies
the nation’s egalitarian ideals. In-group, elitist politics
still characterize French public institutions, while extreme
right, xenophobic policies hold appeal for a small (but
occasionally influential) minority. Post will continue to
explore other underlying causes of the social, political and
economic barriers impeding the advancement of minorities in
France (see Tactic 6, below).
¶3. (C/NF) France suffers consequences when its leading
institutions fail to reflect the composition of its
population. We believe France has not benefited fully from
the energy, drive, and ideas of its minorities. Despite some
French claims to serve as a model of assimilation and
meritocracy, undeniable inequities tarnish France’s global
image and diminish its influence abroad. In our view, a
sustained failure to increase opportunity and provide genuine
political representation for its minority populations could
render France a weaker, more divided country. The
geopolitical consequences of France’s weakness and division
will adversely affect U.S. interests, as we need strong
partners in the heart of Europe to help us promote democratic
values. Moreover, social exclusion has domestic consequences
for France, including the alienation of some segments of the
population, which can in turn adversely affect our own
efforts to fight global networks of violent extremists. A
thriving, inclusive French polity will help advance our
interests in expanding democracy and increasing stability
worldwide.
——————————-
A STRATEGY FOR FRANCE: OUR AIMS
——————————-
¶4. (C/NF) The overarching goal of our minority outreach
strategy is to engage the French population at all levels in
order to help France to realize its own egalitarian ideals.
Our strategy has three broad target audiences in mind: (1)
the majority, especially the elites; (2) minorities, with a
focus on their leaders; (3) and the general population.
Employing the seven tactics described below, we aim (1) to
increase awareness among France’s elites of the benefits of
expanding opportunity and the costs of maintaining the status
quo; (2) to improve the skills and grow the confidence of
minority leaders who seek to increase their influence; (3)
and to communicate to the general population in France that
we particularly admire the diversity and dynamism of its
population, while emphasizing the advantages of profiting
from those qualities by expanding opportunities for all.
————————————–
TACTIC 1: ENGAGE IN POSITIVE DISCOURSE
————————————–
¶5. (C/NF) First, we will focus our discourse on the issue of
equal opportunity. When we give public addresses about the
community of democracies, we will emphasize, among the
qualities of democracy, the right to be different, protection
of minority rights, the value of equal opportunity, and the
importance of genuine political representation. In private
meetings, we will deliberately direct questions about equal
opportunity in France to high-level, non-minority French
leaders. Rather than retreating from discussions involving
two sacred cows in France — the concepts of “secularism” and
“communitarianism” — we will engage French leaders directly
about the role that their terminology and intellectual
frameworks could play in creating (or diminishing) equality
of opportunity in France. We will endeavor to convey the
costs to France of the under-representation of minorities,
highlighting the benefits we have accumulated, over time, by
working hard to chip away at the various impediments faced by
American minorities. We will, of course, continue to adopt a
humble attitude regarding our own situation in the U.S., but
nevertheless will stress the innumerable benefits accruing
from a proactive approach to broad social inclusion,
complementing our French partners on any positive steps they
take. In addition, we will continue and intensify our work
with French museums and educators to reform the history
curriculum taught in French schools, so that it takes into
account the role and perspectives of minorities in French
history.
——————————
TACTIC 2: SET A STRONG EXAMPLE
——————————
¶6. (C/NF) Second, we will employ the tool of example. We
will continue and expand our efforts to bring minority
leaders from the U.S. to France, working with these American
leaders to convey an honest sense of their experience to
French minority and non-minority leaders alike. When we send
French leaders to America, we will include, as often as
possible, a component of their trip that focuses on equal
opportunity. In the Embassy, we will continue to invite a
broad spectrum of French society to our events, and avoid, as
appropriate, hosting white-only events, or minority-only
events. We will be inclusive, working in this way to break
down barriers, facilitate communication, and expand networks.
By bringing together groups who would not otherwise interact
together, the Embassy will continue to use its cachet to
create networking opportunities that cut through traditional
cultural and social barriers in France.
——————————————
TACTIC 3: LAUNCH AGGRESSIVE YOUTH OUTREACH
——————————————
¶7. (C/NF) Third, we will continue and expand our youth
outreach efforts in order to communicate about our shared
values with young French audiences of all socio-cultural
backgrounds. Leading the charge on this effort, the
Ambassador’s inter-agency Youth Outreach Initiative aims to
engender a positive dynamic among French youth that leads to
greater support for U.S. objectives and values. Some
PARIS 00000058 003 OF 004
elements of our Youth Outreach Initiative have particular
importance for minorities, including:
– Drawing heavily on new media, we aim first to build trust
and gain understanding among French youth from diverse
backgrounds.
– While reinforcing mutual trust and understanding, we seek
to help France’s next generation improve their capacity to
lead in their communities, while also conveying the
importance of transcending the bounds of their own
communities in order to make a broader, national impact.
– To achieve these aims, we will build on the expansive
Public Diplomacy programs already in place at post, and
develop creative, additional means to influence the youth of
France, employing new media, corporate partnerships,
nationwide competitions, targeted outreach events, especially
invited U.S. guests.
– We will also develop new tools to identify, learn from,
and influence future French leaders.
– As we expand training and exchange opportunities for the
youth of France, we will continue to make absolutely certain
that the exchanges we support are inclusive.
– We will build on existing youth networks in France, and
create new ones in cyberspace, connecting France’s future
leaders to each other in a forum whose values we help to
shape — values of inclusion, mutual respect, and open
dialogue.
———————————-
TACTC 4: ENCOURAGE MODERATE VOICES
———————————-
¶8. (C/NF) Fourth, we will encourage moderate voices of
tolerance to express themselves with courage and conviction.
Building on our work with two prominent websites geared
toward young French-speaking Muslims — oumma.fr and
saphirnews.com — we will support, train, and engage media
and political activists who share our values. As we continue
to meet with moderate leaders of minority groups, we will
also expand our efforts to facilitate grass roots inter-faith
exchanges. We will share in France, with faith communities
and with the Ministry of the Interior, the most effective
techniques for teaching tolerance currently employed in
American mosques, synagogues, churches, and other religious
institutions. We will engage directly with the Ministry of
Interior to compare U.S. and French approaches to supporting
minority leaders who seek moderation and mutual
understanding, while also comparing our responses to those
who seek to sow hatred and discord.
———————————
TACTC 5: PROPAGATE BEST PRACTICES
———————————
¶9. (C/NF) Fifth, we will continue our project of sharing
best practices with young leaders in all fields, including
young political leaders of all moderate parties so that they
have the toolkits and mentoring to move ahead. We will
create or support training and exchange programs that teach
the enduring value of broad inclusion to schools, civil
society groups, bloggers, political advisors, and local
politicians. Through outreach programs, Embassy officers
from all sections will interact and communicate to these same
groups our best practices in creating equal opportunities for
all Americans. We will also provide tools for teaching
tolerance to the network of over 1,000 American university
students who teach English in French schools every year.
——————————————— —-
TACTIC 6: DEEPEN OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROBLEM
——————————————— —-
¶10. (C/NF) Sixth, through focused contact work, reporting
and analysis, we will deepen the USG understanding of the
underlying causes of inequality and discrimination in France.
We will break new ground by examining how the very structure
of some French institutions may limit minority representation
in elected office and the high ranks of the civil service.
Examining significant developments in depth, such as the
debate on national identity (reftel B), we plan to track
trends and, ideally, predict change in the status of
minorities in France, estimating how this change will impact
U.S. interests. As our awareness expands and deepens, we
will adjust, accordingly, the minority outreach strategy
described here.
——————————————— ——–
PARIS 00000058 004 OF 004
TACTIC 7: INTEGRATE, TARGET, AND EVALUATE OUR EFFORTS
——————————————— ——–
¶11. (C/NF) Finally, a Minority Working Group will integrate
the discourse, actions, and analysis of relevant sections and
agencies in the Embassy. This group, working in tandem with
the Youth Outreach Initiative, will identify and target
influential leaders and groups among our primary audiences.
It will also evaluate our impact over the course of the year,
by examining both tangible and intangible indicators of
success. Tangible changes include a measurable increase in
the number of minorities leading and participating in public
and private organizations, including elite educational
institutions; growth in the number of constructive efforts by
minority leaders to organize political support both within
and beyond their own minority communities; new, proactive
policies to enhance social inclusion adopted by non-minority
political leaders; expansion of inter-communal and
inter-faith exchanges at the local level; decrease in popular
support for xenophobic political parties and platforms.
While we could never claim credit for these positive
developments, we will focus our efforts in carrying out
activities, described above, that prod, urge and stimulate
movement in the right direction. In addition, we will track
intangible measures of success — a growing sense of
belonging, for example, among young French minorities, and a
burgeoning hope that they, too, can represent their country
at home, and abroad, even one day at the pinnacle of French
public life, as president of the Republic.
RIVKIN
The so-called US ”national interest” is defined by Ambassador Rivkin as “spreading democratic values” — or is it President Obama’s black nationalism and personal sympathy for the Mohammedanism of his childhood that we see in Ambassador Rivkin’s visions of an African-Mohammedan President of France? — and fighting “networks of violent extremists”, which are precisely what the Obama Administration will work to make mainstream in France — whether out of malice or out of incompetence — as they seek to “encourage moderate voices”.
All this meddling is ostensibly occurring for France’s benefit as well as for America’s. In reality, it benefits neither party, and America and France have not been allies at least since De Gaulle, who sought to align a French-led “Europe from Dublin to Vladivostok” with the Arab world against the United States and Israel, until Eurabia as we know it today materialised. (Interestingly, Israel had been a steadfast ally of France, most recently in 1956 together with Britain in the Suez Crisis. The Eisenhower Administration sided with the USSR against us. Dwight D. Eisenhower personally advocated putting all the world’s nuclear weapons under the control of the UN, something with which the young Ronald Reagan found himself in agreement. Reagan never gave up his liberal delusion that nuclear weapons were a threat rather than a stabilising force; he believed merely that the Soviet Union had to be destroyed before perpetual peace would come.)
Let us hope for Europe’s sake that the French will not succumb to American pressure this time.
10th March, 2011 Update: France is the first nation stupid enough to recognise the jihadist National Libyan Council as the official government of Libya.
17th March, 2011 Update: Britain and France pushed to hold a UN Security Council vote calling for use of force against Gaddafi. Russia and China, traditional Gaddafi allies, appear to be reluctant to go along with the plan, while the Arab League seems to be supportive. Action against Gaddafi ”could include France, Britain, possibly the United States and one or more Arab states”.
18th March, 2011 Update:
By Ken Timmerman in Newsmax on 17th March, 2011:
In Tripoli, Gadhafi’s son Seif al Islam, who has become the Libyan strongman’s spokesman in recent weeks, said the fighting would be over “in 48 hours.”
Gadhafi met with the ambassadors of China, Russia and India on Sunday, and offered to invite them to take over oil installations vacated by Western oil companies, according to the government news agency, JANA.
“We are ready to bring in India and Chinese companies to replace Western companies,” Gadhafi said.
The president of the Libyan oil company, former prime minister Shukri Ghanem, said that Libya was only producing around 500,000 barrils of oil per day, down from 1.6 million b/d before the fighting began in mid-February.
Last week, five llyushin 76 military cargo jets flew military gear to Libya from Russia and unloaded it at the far side of the international airport in Tripoli, according to sources close to rebel forces on the ground.
“There are signs [Gadhafi] is seeking additional armaments right now,” British Prime Minister David Cameron told parliament on Tuesday.
Cameron said the British government was willing to consider imposing a no-fly zone on Libya even without a U.N. Security council resolution, which Russia and China have been blocking until now.
“Every day Gadhafi is brutalizing his own people,” Cameron said. “Time is of the essence.”
Libyan Sukhoi-24 fighter bombers pounded rebel positions during fierce fighting for control of Ajdabiya on Tuesday. The absence of a no-fly zone also has allowed Gadhafi to fly his personal jet, a French-built Dassault Falcon, back and forth to Belarus on suspected sanctions-busting missions, according to Hugh Griffiths, an arms-trafficking analyst with the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, SIPRI.
Griffiths says that Libya has been flying in weapons from Belarus. The rebels claim that Gadhafi has brought in special forces troops from Ukraine to seal the border with Egypt, so the rebels can’t escape as loyalist troops launch the final assault on the rebels at Benghazi.ymy
A Western source in telephone contact with former Libyan air force personnel on the ground at the Tripoli airport, said that two Il-76 flown by Syrian pilots landed five days ago, bringing Hezbollah fighters from Lebanon.
The rebels say that Hezbollah fighters, dressed as civilians, infiltrated Ajdabiya 24 hours before the attack against the rebels by Gadhafi’s forces on Tuesday, and have been slaughtering rebel fighters who didn’t manage to flee before the town fell to the loyalists.
“It’s going to be a bloodbath,” the Western source said his contacts on the ground were telling him.
Syrian president Bashar al-Assad “gave orders to his intelligence to assist Gadhafi’s services via information and any other means,” Middle East expert Walid Phares tells Newsmax. “Damascus allowed a number of pilots trained to fly Migs and Soviet Built attack helicopter to be hired as mercenaries for Gadhafi.”
In a celebratory late-night speech on Tuesday from his Bab Azizia palace in Tripoli, Gadhafi claimed only 150 people had been killed in the fighting.
“What happened is a few rats and dogs infiltrated our society and got some weapons,” he said. “We consider these to be limited incidents.”
20th March, 2011 Update:
From Reuters on 20th March, 2011:
(Reuters) – China wants stability restored to Libya as soon as possible, the foreign ministry said in a statement on Sunday after Western forces launched strikes against Muammar Gaddafi’s troops. Expressing regret about the attacks, the Chinese foreign ministry said that it hoped the conflict would not escalate and lead to greater loss of civilian life.
China had the chance to veto last week’s United Nations Security Council resolution that authorized “all necessary measures,” a term for military action, to protect civilians against Gaddafi’s forces. Instead, it joined Russia, Germany, India and Brazil in abstaining.
China has been trying to balance its worries about allowing military action with the demands of Arab and other governments angered by Gaddafi’s unyielding response to uprisings demanding an end to his rule.
“China has noticed the latest developments in Libya and it expresses regret about the military attacks,” the foreign ministry said in a statement on its website.
“We hope that Libya can recover stability as soon as possible and that an escalation of military conflict leading to more civilian deaths can be avoided,” it added.
China’s comments came just hours after French planes fired the first shots in what is the biggest international military intervention in the Arab world since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Western forces hit targets along the Libyan coast. Libyan state television said 48 people had been killed and 150 wounded in the air strikes.
Throughout the recent tumult across the Middle East and North Africa, China has sought to avoid becoming deeply enmeshed and has little appetite for turning the regional upheaval into a point of confrontation with the United States.
Libya is considering offering oil block contracts directly to China, India and other nations it sees as friends in its month-long conflict with rebels, Libya’s top oil official said on Saturday.
By Alex Bellamy in The Australian on 21st March, 2011:
We can’t dodge the hard part stabilising Libya [sic]
A NERVOUS silence fell on the UN Security Council shortly after 6pm last Thursday. Its Chinese chairman asked members who opposed the passage of Resolution 1973 on Libya to raise their hands. A single nod from the Chinese or Russians would have stopped international efforts to protect the people of Libya from Muammar Gaddafi’s henchmen in their tracks. “Oh man . . .” somebody in the chamber could be heard to say. None of the assembled ambassadors raised their hands.
Russia, China and India, three notorious champions of state sovereignty and non-intervention, abstained. Nigeria, South Africa, Gabon, Lebanon and Colombia joined the West in supporting the resolution.
What this means for Libya remains to be seen but Resolution 1973 marks an important step forward in the battle to rid the world of mass atrocities. The question is no longer whether the world should act to stop mass atrocities but how best to do so.
This is not the first time the international community has used R2P. The council’s hesitant response to Darfur was considerably strengthened after the adoption of R2P in 2005: the president of Sudan was indicted for crimes against humanity and the UN helped deploy one of the largest peace operations there.
African mediators were guided by R2P in their successful effort to stop the post-election violence in Kenya in 2008.
In Guinea and south Sudan the principle has contributed to the prevention of mass killing.
What, then, is special about Resolution 1973?
Besides the remarkable fact that the council was responding to Arab demands for military intervention – unthinkable just a month ago – those who criticise the council’s foot dragging should remember this is the first time it has authorised force against a functioning government to protect civilians.
In Somalia and Rwanda, the council authorised force only once it judged there was no functioning government to consult.
Diplomats thought it virtually impossible to persuade the council to authorise force for humanitarian purposes without the consent of the target state.
It was commonly assumed that at least two of the veto-wielding permanent members (China and Russia) and several other non-Western members would never concede that functioning states lose their right to non-interference when they abuse their own populations.
With the council often deadlocked, groups of states were sometimes forced to act without UN authorisation, as in Kosovo, and bear all the associated political and material costs. Not this time. Building an international consensus on military intervention involves complex and painstaking diplomacy. The Arab League’s call for a no-fly zone was a game-changer.
Some Arab governments were no doubt motivated by dislike of Gaddafi and a desire to divert attention from their own troubles. But only the most jaundiced would dismiss entirely the role of humanitarian concern.
African support was important but not surprising.
The African Union led the way on R2P: its charter, agreed in 2000, gives the organisation a right of humanitarian intervention in Africa.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon played a pivotal role. Advised by the UN’s new Genocide Prevention and R2P office, which warned of an imminent threat of crimes against humanity in the first days of the crisis, Ban urged the council to act.
This put the issue firmly on the agenda, paving the way for Resolution 1970 imposing sanctions and referring Libya to the International Criminal Court.
Strident advocacy by Britain, France and Australia, and the Obama administration’s cool-headed diplomacy, forged a wide consensus on limited military intervention. Indonesia was one of those persuaded.
Why didn’t China cast its veto? China has endorsed R2P more than once but that doesn’t mean it agrees with the West on how to act in the face of crises.
Chinese views about how to respond to major crises are influenced by the opinions of relevant regional organisations.
Diplomats knew that if the Arab League and the African Union were prepared to back the military option in Libya, China would not block it.
This is precisely what China told the council after the passage of Resolution 1973.
For its part, having accepted the need for a second resolution and tabling its own draft calling for a ceasefire, Russia was boxed in politically and unwilling to stand alone against the resolution.
Whether 1973 marks a decisive shift for the better or a new cautionary tale about the limits of humanitarian war depends on what happens next.
If the measures adopted succeed, not only will Libya be transformed but tyranny everywhere will be put on notice.
Difficult operational questions abound. These require hard-nosed thinking. Delivering on 1973 requires good strategy and adequate resources.
The resolution’s supporters must show the will to deliver. Having championed the cause so admirably, Australia cannot now leave the hard work to others.
Note that relatively capitalist Germany abstained from voting on UN Resolution 1973, along with the Sino-Russian-led BRICs nations (though not South Africa, due to her connections with George Soros and R2P) while socialist France is siding with the “enlightened” free world in their quest to give the African Union, the Arab League, and the National Libyan Council the means to carry out Qaradawi’s fatwa against the relatively secular Gaddafi.
28th March, 2011 Update:
From KeyWiki, on George Soros’s involvement in the events in Libya:
In March of 2011, the US, UK and France aligned themselves with the UN to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya. Supposedly this was to protect the rebel forces trying to overthrow Moammar Gadhafi. Whether the US will admit it or not, this would necessitate the dethroning of Gadhafi (who is currently worth about 40 billion dollars and is one of the wealthiest men in the world) or he would have to be eliminated, re: killed. This then clears the path for the Muslim Brotherhood to seize control just as they are doing in Egypt and in other places throughout the Middle East. It would appear that the US has chosen the ‘wrong’ side of this fight either intentionally or by incompetence. Barack Obama violated the Constitution of the United States by not consulting Congress before committing an act of war on another nation that did not pose an imminent threat to the US. He claims it is not an act of war, but bombing another country and restricting their ‘fly zone’ is the very definition of an act of war. It is also a violation of the War Powers Act. He simply went to the United Nations and proceeded as he saw fit. In the US, this is widely viewed as an impeachable offense.
It has been noted that [George] Soros is one of the key people behind the Libya military move. He was a key adviser to Obama on the issue. This may be related to the fact that Gadhafi originally agreed to forming an “open society” in Libya and then reneged on that promise.
From American Thinker:
-
- When we engage militarily in other nations, civilian casualties are inevitable, especially since terrorists hide among civilian populations. There is one influential group that has been in the forefront of efforts to promote the idea that the international community is obligated to take measures (including military ones) to protect civilians. That group is the Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect. Lo and behold! George Soros’ Open Society Institute is one of the two foundations that bankroll this advocacy group (the other, the John D. and Catherine MacArthur Foundation – a group that has, over the years, become known not just for its Genius Awards but also for its funding of left-leaning groups. It is headed by a former State Department official and we know how many of those diplomats think).
The Soros-funded global group that promotes Responsibility to Protect is closely tied to Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights.[30]
From WND:
-
- The joint U.S. and international air strikes targeting Libya are widely regarded as a test of Responsibility to Protect – which is a set of principles, now backed by the United Nations, based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege, but a responsibility.
-
- According to the principle, any state’s sovereignty can be overrun, including with the use of military force, if the international community decides it must act to halt what it determines to be genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity or ethnic cleansing.
The founder of the Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect is Gareth Evans. He is also a board member. Board members of the group include former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, former Ireland President Mary Robinson and South African activist Desmond Tutu. Robinson and Tutu have recently made solidarity visits to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip as members of a group called The Elders, which includes former President Jimmy Carter.
More from WND:
-
- Soros himself outlined the fundamentals of Responsibility to Protect in a 2004 Foreign Policy magazine article entitled “The People’s Sovereignty: How a New Twist on an Old Idea Can Protect the World’s Most Vulnerable Populations.”
-
- In the article, Soros said “true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.”
-
- “If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified,” Soros wrote. “By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states’ borders to protect the rights of citizens.
-
- “In particular, the principle of the people’s sovereignty can help solve two modern challenges: the obstacles to delivering aid effectively to sovereign states, and the obstacles to global collective action dealing with states experiencing internal conflict.”
Soros’ Open Society Institute is one of only three nongovernmental funders of the Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect. Government sponsors include Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Rwanda and the U.K.
Apparently, the best thing the world can do is to assassinate Soros and his heir apparent – his son Alexander – before they destroy everyone but Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Tags: Alexander Soros, Bashar al-Assad, charles h rivkin, Charles Rivkin, dwight d. eisenhower, eisenhower, eisenhower administration, George Soros, Hezbollah, Hosni Mubarak, iran, Moammar Gadhafi, muammar gaddafi, National Libyan Council, nuclear weapons, Obama Administration, Ronald Reagan, soviet union, suez crisis, UN Resolution 1973, ussr, Walid Phares, Wikileaks, Yazid Sabeg, yusuf al-qaradawi
