Calistrat M. Atudorei: AMERICA’S PLANS FOR WORLD HEGEMONY (22)

09:45, 23 ianuarie 2020 | Actual | 223 vizualizări | Nu există niciun comentariu Autor:

We are continuing to publish on our site the fragments from the book AMERICA’S PLANS FOR WORLD HEGEMONY, by Romanian author Calistrat M. Atudorei which was published in English version very recently by printing house ”ePublishers” in Bucharest.

Chapter 9/4. 9/11 and Offensive in the Middle East 

The Devastation of Libya in 2011 

Libya was one of the United States’ top targets and PNAC added it as early as 1991 on the list of countries to be invaded. The actual takeover action was carried out between March and October 2011. The very same pattern that we can observe in most US invasionist interventions was applied: a series of internal tensions are stimulated (or created) in that target-country under the pretext that the government in office does not respect democratic principles, then rebel protesters are secretly backed by US services, the situation degenerates into conflict and even civil war, and finally, the US-led NATO coalition intervenes for humanitarian reasons and overturns the regime. Often the inconvenient dictator is killed, to knock off nationalist resistance.

In 2011 Libya was led for 41 years by Muammar Gaddafi, and the country reached a very high standard of living. Nation-Master76 economic statistics show that in 2011, Libya ranks fifth among African countries in the top GDP, with an index of “$11,354 per annum per capita.”77

A study by German researcher Annette Mick highlights that

UN Human Development Index shows that before the American invasion Libya had one of the highest living standards, the best economic policies for the quality of life, the lowest infant mortality rate and the greatest life expectancy among all African countries.78

Also, a report by a medical staff delegation from Russia, Ukraine and Belarus in March 2011 informed Russian president Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin that[the Libyans] are entitled to free medical treatment and their hospitals provide the best in the world of medical equipment. Education in Libya is free, capable young people have the oppor­tunity to study abroad at government expense. When marrying, young couples receive 60,000 Libyan dinars (about 50,000 U.S. dollars) of financial assistance. Non-interest state loans, and as practice shows, undated. Due to government subsidies the price of cars is much lower than in Europe, and they are affordable for every family. The liter of gasoline and bread cost a penny, no taxes for those who are engaged in agriculture. The Libyan people are quiet and peaceful, are not inclined to drink, and are very religious.79

Let us note that Libya had not only a lot of oil but also “144 tons of gold” as BBC news announced in 2011. The data indicated that “Supplies are substantial, Libya ranking among top 25 worldwide, according to International Monetary Fund data.”80

Beyond Libya’s wealth and resources, what prompted the country’s immediate invasion was that in 2010 Muammar Gaddafi made a capital mistake. The Colonel, as he was called, sought to initiate an economic unification movement of African countries and boldly suggested to the 200 million inhabitants of Africa to refuse to trade oil in dollars or euros. He wanted to liberate Africa and the Arab countries under the West’s economic domination, and that is why he was about to lay the foundations for the use of a new coin, the golden dinar. As reported by an article published in 2011 by Live Journal, “The idea of establishing a golden coin and of uniting African countries into a strong federal state was widely endorsed by many Arab countries and by almost all African countries over the past year.”81

But Gaddafi’s idea was met with wide criticism by US and European Union leaders. According to LiveJournal, French president Nickolas Sarkozy took the matter very seriously and said “the Libyan people threatened the financial security of mankind.” Even if Gaddafi later sought to support his project in terms of peaceful collaboration “The many arguments brought by the leader of the Libyan revolution did not work” and the consequence was that bombing Libya meant “punishing Gaddafi for his attempt to refuse the American dollar.”82

It is significant that, as The New American site reports, the very first day when the US attacked Libya, on March 19, 2011, the rebels claiming that the dictator Gaddafi suppressed their fundamental rights made the decision to “set up a new central bank to replace Muammar Gaddafi’s, whose monetary authority was wholly owned by the state.” The rebels, who called themselves “the new government of Libya” and “the only legitimate representatives of the Libyan people” also announced “the setting up of a new Lebanese Oil Company.” It seems that not by random “The US government and the UN announced that the rebels will be free to sell oil under their control,”83 i.e. under the control of the United States and its allies.

Of course, the tremendous skill and efficiency in business of the rebels awakened suspicion of specialists. Expert Robert Wenzel said ironically in⁠ an analysis published by the Economic Policy Journal that “I have never heard about a central bank being founded in just a few weeks out of popular uprising.”84 Also, The Economic Collapse website published an article in which the author commented with humor: “What a qualified rebellious group! They can wage war during the day and can build a new central bank and a new national oil company at night without any help from outside.”85

Actually, a few years after the US intervention, Libya had no exclusive control over its national Bank and it became a member of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The EBRD website announced in May 2014 that the new Libyan authorities “applied for membership” to “support the country in implementing economic reform programs” following “political changes that had begun in the region after 2011.”86 The influence of reforms is clearly reflected in the statistics available indicating that the country had been enslaved in debt. The data presented by Index Mundi, based on CIA and IMF information, show that “Libyan Public Debt” had fallen vertiginously since 1998 and remained virtually nil since 2004 until 2010 (under Gaddafi), after which it had risen steeply after 2011 (after Gaddafi’s removal). Statista.com, a platform that also provides prospecting based on the correlated analysis of thousands of sources, shows exponential increase in Libya’s debt “from 2010 to 2020”87. This path of indebtedness, also well-known in other countries, reflects an ever-increasing subordination of national policies to international financial structures.

Muammar Gaddafi had one more problem: he was determined to destroy the Al-Qaeda terrorist group. In reality this group was created and used as a cover for sensitive actions by the US government itself, as early as 1981. It is a fact that Hillary Clinton, for example, admitted88 very explicitly, aspect I will detail further on. This is one more reason why the Libyan leader had become very disturbing for the interests of the United States. That’s how — as a Daily Mail article explains in 2014—in preparing for the attack on Libya, “the United States switched sides in the War on Terror and allowed weapons of $500 million to reach Al-Qaeda militants.”89 The conclusion was drawn by a committee of former high-rank officers, CIA insiders and think-tankers, who held a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington on April 22, 2014. The Committee pointed out that

The White House and senior Congressional members deliberately and knowingly pursued a policy that provided material support to terrorist organizations in order to topple a ruler [Muammar Gaddafi] who had been working closely with the West actively to suppress Al-Qaeda.90

There is a wide range of data and revelations that unveil the link between Al-Qaeda and the rebels in Libya. Jerusalem Post, for example, shared in 2011 an item of news from Reuters and reveals how “an Al-Qaeda commander supports Libyan rebels through a message.”91 Similarly, The Telegraph also published in 2011 an article with details about how a “Commander of the rebels in Libya admits that his fighters are related to Al-Qaeda.”92 At the same time, US and British special services openly supported rebel groups with military assistance that included arms supply and training. In this respect, New York Times announced that “CIA agents aid air strikes in Libya and meet rebels.”93 On its turn, The Guardian transmitted euphe­mistically that intelligence service MI6 and CIA carries out “subtle movements” in Libya, but definitely “more explosive than bombing campaign” because they lead to “within implosion of regime, with a propaganda war.”94

A very careful and documented analysis of NATO intervention in Libya was published in 2013 by the international security magazine Quarterly Journal of Harvard University. Titled A Model of Humanitarian Intervention? Reassessing NATO’s Libya Campaign95 — or, in synthesized version, Lessons from Libya: How Not to Interfere — the analysis was conducted by Alan Kuperman, a renowned international expert, professor of political studies at the University of Texas.

Based on reports by the United Nations, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, Kuperman highlights that reality is different from the way it was presented by media. “Not Gaddafi initiated the violence in Libya by assaulting peaceful protesters” but in all four cities (Benghazi, Al Bayda, Tripoli and Misurata) where the conflict began “violence was actually initiated by protesters.”96 Press reports had shown in an exaggerated dramatic manner the number of dead in the initial phase, which they multiplied by ten, quoting “more than 2,000 deaths” while Human Rights Watch (HRW) documented later only “233 deaths throughout Libya at that time.”97

Harvard’s article also emphasizes that when NATO intervened in Libya in mid-March 2011, Gaddafi already regained control over most of the country, while rebels quickly withdrew to Egypt. Thus,

The conflict was about to end, barely six weeks after it started, at a toll of about 1,000 dead, including soldiers, rebels, and civilians caught in the crossfire. By intervening, NATO enabled the rebels to resume their attack, which prolonged the war for another seven months and caused at least 7,000 more deaths.98

In an interview for TV show Democracy now, Alan Kuperman underlined in May 2011 that the available reports and observations demonstrate that there was no genocide or threat from Libya’s government led by Muammar Gaddafi. Kuperman synthesized the extensive US intervention as follows:

What happened was that a very weak force of the rebels attacked the government, and the government quickly rebuffed the force of the rebels to one city and it was about to defeat the rebels in that city. Butthe rebel s announced that a “bloodbath” was predicted and then a few days later, President Obama said he would intervene to stop the bloodbath.99

The US analyst underlined in the interview that “The UN resolution authorized the action to protect civilians, but it seems that more civilians died as a result of the inter­vention than without it.”100

It is also noteworthy that Gaddafi’s 29-year-old son (Saif Al Arab) and three of his grandchildren (all under the age of 12) were killed in a NATO operation at Gaddafi’s Tripoli home, although they were not a threat to anyone. Related to it, Kuperman rightly made the following comment:

What civilian protection is that, to attack the leader of Libya’s residence and kill his children? It violates international norms, nobody can go after a leader’s children and grandchildren… And if you kill them by mistake, you should say that it is a mistake and apologize… I think this is violation of the norms and is counterproductive to the goal of non-combatants’ protection.101

Regarding NATO tactics, Kuperman also emphasized in his study published by Harvard University that it had been precisely NATO the one who conducted unjustified attacks. There were attacks on Libyan forces that were backing down or just positioned in Sirte, Gaddafi’s hometown, where Libyan soldiers in no way threatened civilians. Moreover, NATO continued to stimulate the fight of the rebels even when government forces repeatedly proposed the cease fire, which “could have ended violence and spared civilians’ lives.” Military assistance offered to rebels by NATO “included weapons, training and covert deployment of hundreds of troops” and eventually “enabling the rebels to capture and summarily execute Gaddafi.”102 Gaddafi was murdered on October 20, 2011 following an attack on the convoy he had joined leaving the city of Sirte. The convoy was attacked by American drones, and then the Libyan leader was killed by the National Transitional Council (NTC) group rebels, who then took over the Libyan leadership. Regarding Gaddafi’s brutal assassination, Vladimir Putin made it clear in a public debate103 that the rebels had not accidentally got to that place but were called via walkie talkie after the American drones attack.

Back to Alan Kuperman’s analysis, his conclusion—based on factual observations—was very straight: “Evidence reveals that NATO’s primary aim was to overthrow Gaddafi’s regime, even at the expense of increasing the harm to Libyans.”

However, the position further promoted by US and NATO media and officials is that the military operation in Libya was a success in implementing the responsibility to protect (R2P) rule. And that’s why this “humanitarian intervention” is worth to be repeated! For example, NATO Secretary General, General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the operation in Libya was “a success that could serve as a model in the future.”104

In order to better appreciate the valences of this “success” in “imposing democracy” let us mention some of its consequences after NATO intervention. The organization Human Rights Watch reported in April 2012 that victorious rebels who took over the Libyan leadership launched mass repression of those who backed Gaddafi. The report shows that attacks on tens of thousands of people “seem to be so widespread and systematic that they can be assimilated to crimes against humanity.”105 In September 2012, the rebels attacked an American residence in Benghazi, after which Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three of his colleagues were killed. In April 2013, a trap-car attack in the Libyan capital, Tripoli, destroyed half of the French embassy. Ironically, such violences never existed in the 42 years when Libya was led by Gaddafi.

After being the country with one of the highest living standards in Africa, Libya became, after NATO’s intervention, a state affected by serious internal disturbance, struggles between rival militias, ravaged by terrorist groups, without leadership, structure, and cohesion. According to BBC News, some estimates indicate the existence of “over 1,700 armed groups” because after Gaddafi’s death, anyone carrying a gun could claim respect. Libya had in May 2017 “two rival parliaments and three governments,”106 the last government being formed following UN-negotiated talks to replace the other two. Although even some rival politicians sought to form an administrative coalition of the country, they failed to have an impact throughout the nation.

Whitney Webb, editor at the Ron Paul Institute and Mint Press News website, presented Libya in 2017 as a “failed state” dominated by “Sex slavery, ISIS, and illicit trade in weapons.” She showed that it had become commonplace in Libya to sell people as slaves or throw them into private prisons in order to receive money from their families for ransom. If nobody pays for the prisoners, they “are taken and killed, while others die starving without bare necessities.”107

Of course, the chaos was spread around Libya as well, after its devastation. Predictably, many Libyan rebels trained and funded by Western powers and who belonged to Al-Qaeda or ISI (Islamic State of Iraq), went to Syria. The terrorist Islamic state expanded, taking the name ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria). CNN, for example, presented in 2012 that Libyan rebels move onto Syrian battlefield108, and in the name of jihad they said they were determined to fight for Bashar al-Assad’s overthrow.

(To be continued)

Navighează dupa cuvinte-cheie: , ,