- A previous article on Syria quoted Middle East analyst
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, explaining Washington's longstanding plan to "creat(e)
an arc of instability, chaos, and violence extending from Lebanon, Palestine,
and Syria to Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Iran, and the borders of NATO-garrisoned
Afghanistan."
-
- He explained it also includes redrawing the Eurasian
map, balkanizing or reconfiguring countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan,
Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, perhaps Baltic states, the entire Persian
Gulf, Syria, Lebanon, and, of course, Libya to assure Western control of
its valued resources, besides already having created three Iraqs. The strategy
involves "divid(ing) and conquer(ing to serve) Anglo-American and
Israeli interests in the broader region."
-
- Currently it's playing out violently in Libya, addressed
in numerous previous articles as Western intervention heads closer to invasion,
knowing air strikes alone can't topple Gaddafi unless a "lucky"
one kills him. It's a key administration goal despite official denials,
while defending the right to bomb his compound having no other purpose
than assassination.
-
- Notably on April 26, Los Angeles Times writer David Cloud
headlined, "NATO widens air war in Libya, targeting key sites in Tripoli,"
saying:
-
- Predator drones are being used "to strike directly
at the pillars of the regime, including (Gaddafi), in the heart of Tripoli,"
according to a senior NATO officer, explaining:
-
- "This is a shift, absolutely. We're picking up attacks
on these command-and-control facilities. If (Gaddafi) happens to be in
one of those buildings, all the better," stopping short of saying
he, in fact, is the target.
-
- Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin criticized the
attacks, saying:
-
- "They said they didn't want to kill Gaddafi. Now
some officials say: 'Yes, we are trying to kill Gaddafi.' Who permitted
this, was there a trial? Who took on the right to execute this man, no
matter who he is?"
-
- Putin denounced the efforts, saying they exceed the UN
resolution's mandate. As a result, Libya asked Russia to convene a new
Security Council meeting to address illegitimate NATO action, functioning
as the insurgency's air force, taking sides instead of staying neutral
in Libya's internal affairs.
-
- China also objects to Western military "advisers"
intervening, special forces aiding insurgents besides CIA and MI 6 agents
doing it also for months. Now Britain will deploy troops on Tunisia's border
with Libya, inching closer to invasion. UK Defense Minister Liam Fox justifies
it, saying Britain's prepared for the "long haul," adding:
-
- "It is essential that the international community
gives a very clear signal to the Libyan regime that our resolve isn't time-limited....Politically,
economically, militarily, we are moving forward," stopping short of
explaining key Western goals.
-
- They're unrelated to humanitarian intervention or protecting
civilians, the bogus reasons always given (besides WMDs or other spurious
security threats) to attack, conquer, colonize, and plunder targeted countries.
Now it's Libya's turn at the same Syria experiences Western destabilizing
intervention, perhaps ahead of "shock and awe" and whatever else
US/NATO planners have in mind.
-
- In fact, the Obama administration threatens the entire
region, using "constructive chaos" to create "an arc of
instability, chaos, and violence," affecting all Eurasian countries
to solidify unchallengeable US control.
-
- Moreover, at a time when "Let them eat cake"
arrogance trumps growing public needs, America plans more than ever military
spending. In addition, Britain's Fox said the Libyan campaign won't "be
limited by pounds, shillings and pence" to conclude the mission successfully.
-
- Nor do royal weddings costing her majesty's subjects
a shocking $10 billion, including official understated expenses, security,
and declaring a national holiday, depriving millions of Brits of a day's
pay they can't afford to lose.
-
- Kill Gaddafi
-
- In America, congressional calls are increasing to assassinate
him, Washington's favored regime change method besides externally instigated
coups. In recent days, figures like Republican Senator Lindsey Graham called
for:
-
- "cut(ting) the head of the snake off. Go to Tripoli,
start bombing Gaddafi's inner circle, their compounds, their military headquarters....The
people around Gaddafi need to wake up every day wondering 'will this be
my last?' The military commanders supporting Gaddafi should be pounded.
So I would not let the UN mandate stop what is the right thing to do."
-
- He wasn't asked to explain how violating UN Resolution
1973, its Charter, as well as international and US law is "right"
when daily war crimes keep mounting. Nonetheless, others in Congress agree,
including Senator John McCain, preferring winning on the ground only because
it's chancy "taking him out with a lucky air strike." Senator
Joe Lieberman also says he's "got to start thinking about whether
they want to more directly target (him) and his family."
-
- Bipartisan support in both Houses concurs, as well as
Obama, despite official denials. In fact, current efforts may be to accomplish
Ronald Reagan's failed 1986 objective. At the time, White House press secretary
Larry Speakes called killing Gaddafi "a fortunate by-product of our
act of self-defense," against what he didn't explain nor apologize
for murdering 37 Libyans, including his daughter, as well as injuring dozens
more, mostly civilians, those always harmed most in wars and other conflicts.
-
- Earlier, however, House and Senate members from both
parties criticized Obama for not seeking congressional authorization for
war, saying it exceeded his constitutional authority, but stopping short
of wanting attacks stopped.
-
- In fact, under the Constitution's Article 1, Section
8, only Congress may declare war, what hasn't happened since December 8,
1941 against Japan, making all US wars since illegal. Obama once taught
constitutional law at the University of Chicago. In addition, as a presidential
candidate in December 2007, he told the Boston Globe:
-
- "The president does not have power under the Constitution
to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not
involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
-
- That was then. This is now as Republicans and Democrats
plan authorizing it after the fact either by resolution or a symbolic "sense
of the House and Senate" motion or confirmation.
-
- If so, it will legitimize the illegitimate as Congress
can't invalidate UN Charter provisions explaining under what conditions
intervention, violence and coercion (by one state against another) are
justified. Article 2(3) and Article 33(1) require peaceful settlement of
international disputes. Article 2(4) prohibits force or its threatened
use, including no-fly zones that are acts of war.
-
- In addition, Articles 2(3), 2(4), and 33 absolutely prohibit
any unilateral or other external threat or use of force not specifically
allowed under Article 51 or otherwise authorized by the Security Council.
-
- Moreover, so-called "humanitarian intervention"
amounts to modern-day colonialism to achieve geopolitical objectives. Besides,
America never showed concern for human rights in pursuit of strategic aims.
-
- Notably, dovish US diplomat, advisor, and father of Soviet
containment George Kennan (advocating diplomacy over force) explained what
became America's post-WW II foreign policy. In his February 1948 "Memo
PPS23," he stated:
-
- "....we have 50% of the world's wealth but only
6.3% of its population. (It makes us) the object of envy and resentment.
Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships
(to let us) maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment
to our national society. To do so we will have to dispense with all sentimentality
and daydreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere
on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that
we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world benefaction...."
-
- "We should dispense with the aspiration to 'be liked'
or to be regarded as the repository of a high-minded international altruism....We
should (stop talking about) unreal objectives such as human rights, the
raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far
off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less
we are hampered by idealistic slogans (ideas and practices), the better."
-
- As a result, when America intervenes militarily, it's
for policy goals, never for human rights or humanitarian priorities, rhetoric
notwithstanding.
-
- Why Gaddafi Is Targeted
-
- Previous articles explained that he wasn't fully on board,
or put another way, "with the program." Specific reasons are
explained below.
-
- (1) He opted out of AFRICOM, one of nine global Pentagon
commands, to control the Africa and the Mediterranean Basin, including
its strategic energy transit routes and choke points, crucial to keep open
for world economies. All African countries participate except Sudan, Zimbabwe,
Ivory Coast, Eritrea, and Libya. He also backed an initiative to create
a United States of Africa, whereas Washington wants easily exploitable
divisions.
-
- (2) Besides ranked ninth in the world with 42 billion
proved barrels of oil reserves (and large amounts of gas), its untapped
potential is believed much greater. Moreover, being nearly sulfur-free,
it's even more valued for its extremely high quality. At issue isn't access,
it's control over who develops, produces and receives it in what amounts.
-
- (3) In January 2009, Gaddafi wanted to nationalize Libyan
oil, but his timetable faced internal resistance. According to Pravda.ru's
March 25, 2011 article titled, "Reason for war? Gaddafi wanted to
nationalise oil," he considered the option because of low oil prices
at the time, saying:
-
- "The oil-exporting countries should opt for nationalisation
because of the rapid fall in oil prices. We must put the issue on the table
and discuss it seriously. Oil should be owned by the State at this time,
so we could better control prices by the increase or decrease in production."
-
- In February 2009, he asked for public support to distribute
Libya's oil wealth directly to the people. However, senior officials feared
losing their jobs "due to a parallel plan by Gaddafi to rid the state
of corruption." He was also advised about the possibility of capital
flight.
-
- As a result, Libya's Popular Committee voted 468 - 64
to delay nationalization plans, even though a 251 majority viewed the change
as positive.
-
- Note: Gaddafi didn't consider how powerful insiders manipulate
all markets up or down for profit, including oil, irrespective of demand.
It's brazen fraud but goes on all the time, especially on Wall Street in
collusion with Washington.
-
- (4) Libya's Great Man-Made River (GMMR) is developing
an ocean-sized aquifer beneath the desert for irrigation, human consumption,
and other uses. At 2007 consumption rates, it could last 1,000 years. No
wonder Gaddafi calls his Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System (NSAS) the "Eighth
Wonder of the World."
-
- At issue, of course, is privatizing it, making water
unaffordable for many, perhaps most Libyans. In other words, neoliberal
control will exploit it for maximum profits, not equitable use as a public
resource.
-
- (5) Ellen Brown's April 13 article titled, "Libya:
All About Oil, or All About Banking?" raised another, easily overlooked,
issue. Who controls Libya's money, the lifeblood of every economy? In 1970,
Henry Kissinger said, "Control oil and you control nations. Control
food and you control people." He neglected to add, control money and
you control everything because without it economies collapse.
-
- At issue is whether it's public or private like most
nations, including America under the Federal Reserve that isn't federal
and has no reserves as Ron Paul explains.
-
- Under Gaddafi, "the Central Bank of Libya is 100%
State owned." In other words, it creates its own money, the Libyan
Dinar, interest free to be used productively for economic growth, not profits
and bonuses for predatory bankers.
-
- However, after Washington's led NATO intervention, the
privately controlled Central Bank of Benghazi was established to let Western
bankers, not Libyans, run things. Money control indeed appears an important
reason for intervening, perhaps most important of all.
-
- (6) On April 24, Manlio Dinucci's Global Research article
headlined, "Financial Heist of the Century: Confiscating Libya's Sovereign
Wealth Funds (SWF)," saying:
-
- Besides money, oil, gas, water, and other reasons, the
"Libyan Investment Authority (LIA) manages" an estimated $70
billion, "rising to more than $150 billion (including) foreign investments
of the Central Bank and other bodies. But it might be more."
-
- Confiscation gives US/NATO interests easy money to use
for their own purposes, no matter that doing so amounts to grand theft,
an American/Western specialty in league with Wall Street and its European
counterparts.
-
- "Constructive chaos" takes many forms, including
conquering and colonizing nations, then carving up the corpse for profit
to the detriment of its people. That's always imperial Washington's grand
plan, playing out disruptively throughout the region and violently in Libya.
-
- A Final Comment
-
- A previous article discussed US intervention in Syria.
On April 28, Washington Post writers Joby Warrick and Liz Sly headlined,
"Senators press Obama to take strong action against Syria," saying:
-
- Besides ongoin wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and
Libya, "Sens. John McCain (R.-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R.-SC), and Joseph
Lieberman (I-CT) demanded tangible steps to pressure Assad," issuing
a joint letter stating:
-
- "The escalating crackdown by Bashar al-Assad's regime
against the Syrian people has reached a decisive point. By following the
path of Muammar Gaddafi and deploying military forces to crush peaceful
demonstrations, Assad and those loyal to him have lost the legitimacy to
remain in power in Syria."
-
- In fact, as the earlier article explained, "peaceful
demonstrations" include provocateurs inciting violence that, in turn,
trigger a robust government response, resulting in security force deaths
as well as civilians expressing legitimate demands for reform.
-
- According to reports, only sanctions so far are being
considered. In fact, they made be step one ahead of already being discussed
harsher measures. It takes little insight to imagine what kinds.
-
- Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at
lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com
and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the
Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays
at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs
are archived for easy listening.
-
- http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.
|
