Eyes for Peace: “The NATO bombing killed 2% of the population in Libya” May 17, 2012


Eyes for Peace: “The NATO bombing killed 2% of the population in Libya”

May 17, 2012

The advocacy organization Human Rights Human Rights Watch calls for NATO to investigate the deaths of at least 72 civilians in the bombing of the Alliance during the military operation in Libya in 2011.

However, some NGOs estimate that the death toll may reach 2% of the civilian population. In a recent report, Human Rights Watch (HRW) analyzes eight air strikes carried out by the Allies in Libya and says that according to his “field research” and “interviews with witnesses and local residents,” there were 72 civilian casualties , including 20 women and 24 children.

However, NATO rejects the allegations and claims that only carried out attacks on military regime Muammar Gaddafi , according to statements by Oana Lungescu, spokesman for the Alliance.

For his part, counsel Purification González, International Collective Eye for Peace, believes that if the Alliance is not going to investigate the attacks is because he fears could come to light more cases. The NATO bombing “have killed almost 2% of the civilian population” in Libya, that is, about 60,000 people, according to the Peace Eye citing local sources. ****(till today its more than 2% with the every day killing, bombing and death by torture we have arrived to 500.000 people who have been killed from both sides)

The military campaign deployed by NATO in Libya between March and October 2011 was authorized by a resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations in order to protect civilians against armed conflict between the regime of then-Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and the rebels.

However, subsequently the NATO bombing contributed to the capture, lynching and murder without trial of Gaddafi and some of his relatives. But behind international intervention there were also economic interests , according Purification González.
“Large corporations are using NATO governments through wars and to plunder the resources, in this case to keep the oil and strategically positioned for future wars and to support Israel,” says the lawyer.

UN cornered by the vast evidence of torture and unpunished murders, today acknowledged the existence of serious problems in governance, security and human rights in Libya, including the practice of torture and deaths in secret detention centers.
Confirmation of these violations was presented by the special UN envoy to Libya, Ian Martin, in a report to the Security Council devoted to analyzing the situation in the Arab country.
The official said that the expectation of rapid changes created tension in the political system and led to disappointment at the lack of progress five months after the coming to power of the current government.
In response, Martin urged the authorities to show tangible progress in the short-term, even before the next general elections and the formation of the new administration.
As for the secret prisons, the UN envoy hypocritically estimated four thousand in the number of people held by terrorist groups serving NATO-NTC involved, along with NATO, in the coup against the Libyan government and the Assassination against Muammar Gaddafi.

Also confirmed that the abuse and torture continue as a common practice in those facilities, particularly in an existing in Misrata, where reported deaths from this cause, as well as other centers in Tripoli, Zawiya and Zintan.
Martin also warned about the tension in different parts of the country and explained various armed clashes in Sabha in March with the death of 150 people and 500 wounded, and others in the southwestern part of Libyan territory, in April.

****Editors note: This piece was written in 2012 but most of the photos were not circulated for reasons that a lot of bloggers were blocked as the west does not want the truth to come out. So please circulate these photos just to show what NATO and the so-called Rebels ex prisoners who were from Qatar, Guantanamo, Saudi Arabia, Egypt the list is long. The same thing is happening in Syria and Ukraine

source:libya-sos.blogspot.ch

About these ads

Libya’s “Water Wars” and Gaddafi`s Great Man-Made River Project


Libya’s “Water Wars” and Gaddafi`s Great Man-Made River Project

By Mathaba

It was Muammar Gaddafi`s dream to provide fresh water for all Libyans and to make Libya self-sufficient in food production.

Libyans called it the eighth wonder of the world. Western media called it a pet project and the pipe dream of a mad dog. The “mad dog” himself in 1991 prophetically said about the largest civil engineering venture in the world:

After this achievement, American threats against Libya will double. The United States will make excuses, but the real reason is to stop this achievement, to keep the people of Libya oppressed.

Gaddafi’s dream

It was Muammar Gaddafi’s dream to provide fresh water for all Libyans and to make Libya self-sufficient in food production. In 1953, the search for new oilfields in the deserts of southern Libya led to the discovery not just of significant oil reserves, but also of vast quantities of fresh water trapped in the underlying strata. The four ancient water aquifers that were discovered, each had estimated capacities ranging between 4,800 and 20,000 cubic kilometers. Most of this water was collected between 38,000 and 14,000 years ago, though some pockets are believed to be only 7,000 years old.

After Gaddafi and the Free Unitary Officers seized power in a bloodless coup from the corrupt King Idris during the Al-Fateh Revolution in 1969, the Jamahiriya government nationalized the oil companies and spent much of the oil revenues to harness the supply of fresh water from the desert aquifers by putting in hundreds of bore wells. Large farms were established in southern Libya to encourage the people to move to the desert. It turned out that the majority of the people however preferred life in the northern coastal areas.

gaddafi_gmmr

Therefore Gaddafi subsequently conceived a plan to bring the water to the people instead. The Libyan Jamahiriya government conducted the initial feasibility studies in 1974, and in 1983 the Great Man-Made River Authority was set up. This fully government funded project was designed in five phases, each of them largely separate in itself, but which eventually would combine to form an integrated system. As water in Gaddafi’s Libya was regarded to be a human right, there has not been any charge on the people, nor were any international loans needed for the almost $30 billion cost of the project. *****(and now Nestle wants to privatize the water as they do not think or regard to be a HUMAN RIGHT)

In 1996, during the opening of Phase II of the Great Man-Made River Project, Gaddafi said:

This is the biggest answer to America and all the evil forces who accuse us of being concerned with terrorism. We are only concerned with peace and progress. America is against life and progress; it pushes the world toward darkness.

Development and destruction

gaddafi_gmmr2

At the time of the NATO-led war against Libya in 2011, three phases of the Great Man-Made River Project were completed. The first and largest phase, providing two million cubic metres of water a day along a 1,200 km pipeline to Benghazi and Sirte, was formally inaugurated in August 1991. Phase II includes the delivery of one million cubic metres of water a day to the western coastal belt and also supplies Tripoli. Phase III provides the planned expansion of the existing Phase I system, and supplies Tobruk and the coast from a new wellfield.

The ‘rivers’ are a 4000-kilometer network of 4 meters diameter lined concrete pipes, buried below the desert sands to prevent evaporation. There are 1300 wells, 500,000 sections of pipe, 3700 kilometers of haul roads, and 250 million cubic meters of excavation. All material for the project was locally manufactured. Large reservoirs provide storage, and pumping stations control the flow into the cities.

The last two phases of the project should involve extending the distribution network together. When completed, the irrigation water from the Great Man-Made River would enable about 155,000 hectares of land to be cultivated. Or, as Gaddafi defined, the project would make the desert as green as the flag of the Libyan Jamahiriya.

In 1999, UNESCO accepted Libya’s offer to fund the Great Man-Made River International Water Prize, an award that rewards remarkable scientific research work on water usage in arid areas.

Many foreign nationals worked in Libya on the Great Man-Made River Project for decades. But after the start of NATO’s so-called humanitarian bombing of the North-African country in March 2011, most foreign workers have returned home. In July 2011, NATO not only bombed the Great Man-Made River water supply pipeline near Brega, but also destroyed the factory that produces the pipes to repair it, claiming in justification that it was used as “a military storage facility” and that “rockets were launched from there”. Six of the facility’s security guards were killed in the NATO attack, and the water supply for the 70% of the population who depend on the piped supply for personal use and for irrigation has been compromised with this damage to Libya’s vital infrastructure.

The construction on the last two phases of the Great Man-Made River Project were scheduled to continue over the next two decades, but NATO’s war on Libya has thrown the project’s future – and the well being of the Libyan people – into great jeopardy.

A German language documentary shows the size and brilliance of the project:

Water Wars

Fresh clean water, as provided to the Libyans by the Great Man-Made River, is essential to all life forms. Without fresh water we simply cannot function. Right now, 40% of the global population has little to no access to clean water, and that figure is actually expected to jump to 50% by 2025. According to the United Nations Development Program 2007, global consumption of water is doubling every 20 years, more than twice the rate of human population growth. Simultaneously, every single year most of the major deserts around the world are becoming bigger and the amount of usable agricultural land in most areas is becoming smaller, while rivers, lakes and major underground aquifers around the globe are drying up – except in Gaddafi’s Libya.

In the light of the current world developments, there is more to the NATO destruction of the Great Man-Made River Project than being an isolated war crime. The United Nations Environment Program 2007 describes a so-called “water for profit scheme”, which actively promotes the privatization and monopolization for the world’s water supplies by multinational corporations. Meanwhile the World Bank recently adopted a policy of water privatization and full-cost water pricing, with one of its former directors, Ismail Serageldin, stating:

“The wars of the 21st century will be fought over water”.

gaddafi_gmmr3

In practice this means that the United Nations in collaboration with the World Bank plans to secure water resources to use at their disposal, and that once they totally control these resources, the resources become assets to be reallocated back to the enslaved nations for a price. Those prices will rise while the quality of the water will decrease, and fresh water sources will become less accessible to those who desperately need it. Simply put, one of the most effective ways to enslave the people is to take control of their basic daily needs and to take away their self-sufficiency.

How this relates to the NATO destruction of Gaddafi’s Great Man-Made River Project in July 2011 can be best illustrated by the Hegelian Dialectic, popularly known as the concept of Problem -> Reaction -> Solution. In this case, by bombing the water supply and the pipes factory, a Problem was created with an ulterior motive, namely to gain control over the most precious part of Libya’s infrastructure. Subsequently a Reaction in the form of an immediate widespread need was provoked as a result of the Problem, since as much as 70% of the Libyans depend on the Great Man-Made River for personal use as well as for the watering of the land. A month after the destruction of the Great Man-Made River, more than half of Libya was without running water. Ultimately a predetermined Solution was implemented: in order to have access to fresh water, the inhabitants of the war-torn country had no choice but to fully depend on – and thus to be enslaved to – the NATO-installed government.

A ‘democratic’ and ‘democracy-bringing’ government that came to power through the wounding and killing of thousands of Libyans by ‘humanitarian bombs’, and that overthrow the ‘dictator’ whose dream it was to provide fresh water for all Libyans for free.

War is still peace, freedom is still slavery.

Sources and further information:

http://www.water-technology.net/projects/gmr/ 
http://www.uruknet.info/?new=81150
http://american_almanac.tripod.com/libya.htm
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/12/the-coming-water-wars.html
http://www.caseyresearch.com/articles/coming-water-wars
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/the-groundwater-footprint-over-population-threatens-water-resources_082012

http://mathaba.net/support

Shocking Revelations: The Horrifying Truth About Libya


Shocking Revelations: The Horrifying Truth About Libya

by: Bobby Powell

The “revolution” in Libya was anything but a popular uprising. The “protestors” that overthrew Moammar Gadaffi were in fact al-Qaeda terrorists that had been unleashed on the country by the CIA under the direction of Barack Hussein Obama, and I prove this in this latest episode of The Truth Is Viral.

Even more shockingly, you will hear an exclusive TTiV interview with a NATO spokesman who states, for the record, that the reason Obama had given for intervening in Libya was an utter lie. Obama had claimed that Gadaffi was about to use chemical weapons on the “protestors,” when in fact he had been dispossessed of any WMD capability as early as 2003. NATO not only knew this, they were the ones who had been helping Gadaffi get rid of those weapons.

Barack Obama, however, is not one to let a few facts get in his way when it comes to implementing whatever evil agenda he wishes. Under orders from a cabal of international bankers Obama, who has been doing whatever he can to support radical Islamists across the Middle East, the CIA trained and equipped al-Qaeda terrorists and set them on a path of revolution that ended with a new Libyan Central Bank and the black flag of al-Qaeda flying over the Benghazi courthouse.

Assisted by NATO forces and Qatari Army Soldiers, and supplied with weapons by the Qataris, these al-Qaeda terrorists succeeded in removing the Libyan leader from power before brutally murdering him.

Now, the very same al-Qaeda terrorists Obama has been supporting since he lied during his first inauguration when he swore to support and defend the United States are tear-assing around Syria, wiping out entire Christian villages. Christians are being beheaded and crucified for their faith, their children forced to watch as the evil scum Obama loves so much use the heads of their parents as soccer balls before being dismembered and killed themselves.

And your tax dollars are supporting that horror.

Please share this episode of The Truth Is Viral in every way you can. Particularly, send it to every talking head you can think of at FOX news. At least they won’t have the excuse that they didn’t know. They know, believe me. We just have to let them know that WE know, hopefully shaming them into covering this story properly. Of course, since FOX News is more than 40% owned by the Saudi royal family (also sponsors of al-Qaeda,) that may be too much to hope for.

But we have to try.

God bless and Semper Fi,
Bobby

source: bobpowell.blogspot.gr

NATO’s “Humanitarian War” on Libya: Prelude to a Humanitarian Disaster


NATO’s “Humanitarian War” on Libya: Prelude to a Humanitarian Disaster

By Global Research News

by Greg Shupak

libyA

The Libyan campaign not only caused extensive death and human rights violations, but it may usher in decades of more war.

Liberal interventionists thought they had this one.  Their doctrine had seemingly triumphed in Libya.  Not only were the usual suspects, the Christopher Hitchenses, the Bernard-Henri Levys, peddling the notion that NATO could be a global constabulary for the enforcement of human rights, but more careful commentators like Juan Cole and Gilbert Achcar had also backed Western intervention. If NATO’s war in Libya has now lost some of its initial luster, it is primarily because the murder of US Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americans brought worldwide attention to the nature of the forces the war unleashed and to the chaotic state in which Libyans now find themselves.

But the shine was, from the start, an illusion, as Maximilian Forte proves in his important new book,Slouching Towards Sirte. Forte thoroughly chronicles NATO’s bombing of Libya and the crimes against humanity for which NATO is responsible. The author takes us on a tour of Sirte after it had been subject to intense NATO bombardment by chronicling journalists’ impressions of the city in October 2011. Reporters observed, “Nothing could survive in here for very long,” that the city was “reduced to rubble, a ghost town filled with the stench of death and where bodies litter the streets,” that it was a place “almost without an intact building,” whose infrastructure “simply ceased to exist,” and resembled “Ypres in 1915, or Grozny in 1995,” or postwar “Leningrad, Gaza or Beirut.”

Forte describes numerous NATO operations which, he argues, rose to the level of war crimes. For example, he discusses a NATO strike on a farming compound in the town of Majer on 8 August 2011. A Human Rights Watch investigation concluded that NATO fired on the compound twice, the second time killing 34 civilians who had come to look for survivors —a tactic familiar to those who follow US drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen—and found no evidence that the target had been used for military purposes. In its examination of five sites where NATO caused civilian casualties, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) found that at four of those sites NATO’s characterization of the targets as “‘command and control nodes’ or ‘troop staging areas’ was not reflected in evidence at the scene and witness testimony.” In view of these and other killings of civilians by NATO, Palestinian lawyer Raji Sourani remarks that the Independent Civil Society Mission to Libya of which he was a part has “reason to think that there were some war crimes perpetrated” by NATO. Through this method, Forte shows the fundamental contradiction of humanitarian wars: they kill people to ensure that people are not killed.

Racist Rebels

 

One lesson liberal interventionists should draw from the Libyan war is that the mere fact of opposing a tyrant does not indicate that a given rebel group values human rights. Forte persuasively demonstrates that the thuwar – the anti-Qadhafi fighters – had no such standards.  On October 21 2011, 66 bodies were found at the Mahari Hotel, at least 53 of whom were executed by a rebel militia.  An undetermined portion of these were Qadhafi loyalists who had been captured along with Qadhafi himself.  Those killed at the hotel were shot with rifles and many had their hands tied behind their backs and some can be seen on video being abused before their execution. NATO plainly shares responsibility for these crimes because before NATO bombing commenced, the insurgents were on the verge of defeat and could not have won the war without NATO air cover, arms, money, and diplomatic support.

The most serious indictment of NATO’s rebel allies is their violent treatment of black Libyans and migrant workers from countries in southern Africa.  For instance, when Tripoli fell to rebels in August 2011, a reporter for The Independent visited a makeshift hospital controlled by the insurgents and found the decomposing bodies of 30 men, many of whom had their hands bound behind their backs and almost all of whom were black. Hostility towards these groups has its origin in the rumor that Qadhafi employed large numbers of mercenaries from southern Africa, a notion popularized early in the rebellion, and spread throughout Western media and the pro-intervention Al-Jazeera English.  On this aspect of the war Forte quotes Jean Ping, chair of the African Union, as saying that the “NTC seems to confuse black people with mercenaries….They are killing people, normal workers, mistreating them.”

Other evidence confirms Forte’s account. For example, an Amnesty International report notes that the rebels “have ‘arrested’” many suspected African mercenaries “although such ‘arrests’ are better described as abductions.”  The UNHRC report notes, “From the beginning of the uprising in February 2011, dark-skinned migrant workers were targeted – including being killed” [sic]. It appears no mercenaries were used by Qadhafi, and even if he had used such fighters, it would not justify widespread discriminatory practices or pigment-based violent attacks. In any case, as Forte points out, executing captured mercenaries is prohibited by international law.

Forte pays particular attention to the experience of the black residents of Tawergha, a town adjoining Misurata.  Insurgents from Misurata depopulated Tawergha of virtually all of its 10,000-30,000 predominantly black residents and looted and vandalized their homes.  The officer in charge of the rebel garrison in the town said, “We gave [the Tawergha] thirty days to leave.  We said if they didn’t go, they would be conquered and imprisoned.  Every single one of them has left, and we will never allow them to come back.” The UNHRC supports Forte’s account.  It found that “thuwar have extra-judicially executed, otherwise unlawfully killed and tortured to death Tawerghans,” that they have “arbitrarily arrested Tawerghans in locations across Libya,” that “the continuing destruction of Tawergha in the post-conflict period has been done with the intent of . . . preventing the return of displaced Tawerghans,” that these activities constitute “a war crime” and that “the facts indicate crimes against humanity have taken place.”

 

A Propaganda Campaign

 

To the extent that the enduring conservative justification for militarism is that every world leader opposed to Western interests is another Hitler, the equivalent for liberal interventionists is the notion that any party to a conflict that they both side with, and deem  likely to lose, are the next Rwandan Tutsis.  The latter group is cast as an innocent, helpless and defenceless people who can only be saved by the might of benevolent and disinterested Western militaries. Thus the residents of Benghazi were put forth as the Tutsis in the Western imaginary – a claim with little basis in fact.

Hysterical claims that Qadhafi was on the verge of carrying out a genocide rang out in the Western press. However, these had little basis. Forte quotes Alan J. Kuperman, noting that, “The best evidence that Khadafy did not plan genocide in Benghazi is that he did not perpetrate it in the other cities he had recaptured either fully or partially — including Zawiya, Misurata, and Ajdabiya.”  During his 42 year rule, Qadhafi faced numerous coup attempts and armed revolts. Though he typically dealt with the alleged perpetrators in a brutal fashion, at no point did his regime behave in a genocidal manner.

Furthermore, the ground for instituting a no-fly zone over Libya through UN Security Council Resolution 1973 was the assertion that Qadhafi was bombing protestors from the sky.  Yet, as Forte demonstrates, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that he had no confirmation that Qadhafi fired on Libyans from the air.  Similarly, Al-Jazeera English, US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, and then-Secretary of State Hilary Clinton circulated the claim that Qadhafi had fed his military Viagra so as to facilitate mass rape.  While it is clear that Qadhafi’s forces committed acts of sexual violence, Forte draws on Amnesty International and other sources to demonstrate that the dissemination of Viagra no more took place than did the Iraqi military’s killing of babies in Kuwaiti incubators in 1991.

 

The Legitimacy of Political Violence

 

 Underlying Forte’s accounts of the use of force are vital questions about the legitimacy of political violence. Forte rightly questions why the “international community” permits NATO to carry out a brutal counter-insurgency that is designed to keep Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s undemocratic regime in power instead of a ruthless insurgency but is indignant at the prospect of Qadhafi’s undemocratic regime doing the same to keep itself in power and ward off a ruthless insurgency. Liberal interventionists apparently believe that all violence enacted by NATO militaries or anyone on their side is legitimate, whereas the opposite is true for the violence of NATO’s antagonists. Part of what’s at play here is the question of how social change takes place.

Even in view of the troubles of “democracy” imposition in Afghanistan and Iraq, the liberal interventionists seem to assume that the best way that dark-skinned peoples in the global South can achieve “freedom” is under the tutelage of NATO bombs: “This is a bleak vision of humanity that has been erected by the ‘humanitarians,’” as Forte writes, “one at odds with history, sociology, and anthropology, which are rich with countless cases of people who have been able to fight, resist, and practice multiple forms of self-protection; indeed, local actors struggling for change often prefer their own solutions over those imposed by outsiders.”

Yet, on the question of the legitimacy of political violence, one could argue that Forte at times ensnares himself in a parallel trap.  Hostile readers of his book may come away with the impression that Forte believes Libyans had no right to undertake armed struggle against Qadhafi’s dictatorship under any circumstances – or perhaps even that he views the very idea of a Libyan uprising as something that is, even apart from NATO involvement, to be opposed.  What is needed is for debates about the legitimacy of political violence and intervention to be based on a consistent application of coherent principles and scrupulous attention to the particular details of each conflict, for there are no simple, one-size-fits-all answers to questions about the legitimacy of the use of political violence.

And while in the early stages of the Libyan conflict there was no guarantee that a protracted war would solve the issues under contestation, it should have been clear to any observer that prolonging combat would displace, kill and maim large numbers of civilians and destroy infrastructure.

For these reasons, the right position on the situation faced by Libyans in February-March 2011 would have been to seek the earliest possible end to armed hostilities. Ample opportunities for a negotiated settlement to the Libyan conflict existed, and Forte shows how NATO and its allies scuttled all attempts to facilitate a peaceful solution to the war.  Qadhafi’s five ceasefire offers were rejected out of hand, including one that was offered hours after the passage of UN Resolution 1973 authorized the use of “all necessary measures” to protect civilians. The African Union’s (AU) attempt at facilitating a ceasefire and negotiations in April was obstructed by NATO and its allies and in June a derivative of this plan was put forth by US Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who later revealed that a peaceful settlement was on the verge of realization but officials in the US State Department deliberately de-railed it.

 

African Contexts

 

 The blockage of the AU plan is crucial because it offers some insight into the question of why the West fought its war in the Jamahiriya.  As Forte’s book clarifies, NATO’s war in Libya was at least in part a war for power and control in Africa, one which has hastened the militarization of the continent.  At the centre of what Forte calls a “new scramble for Africa” is the United States’ Africa Command (AFRICOM), an organization based in Germany, and in charge of US military relations with 53 African states.  The Qadhafi regime’s opposition to AFRICOM is a context in which NATO’s decision to intervene on the side of anti-Qadhafi forces must be understood. 

Citing cables from the US embassy in Tripoli, Forte documents American frustration with African governments, “mostly notably…Libya,” who prevented the U.S from establishing a base for AFRICOM operations in Africa and who viewed AFRICOM as a vehicle for “latter-day colonialism.” While the organization claims that its command is “indirect” and that it will collaborate with civilian agencies, Forte quotes AFRICOM commander General Ham as saying that this “does not mean we simply wait for others to ask for our support. I expect our Command to actively seek and propose innovative and imaginative approaches through which we may apply the considerable military capability of the United States to its best advantage.”

The rise and fall of the Community of Sahel-Saharan States (CEN-SAD) is another key context.  CEN-SAD is a Tripoli-Based regional body, formed in 1998 to promote trade, free movement, telecommunications, and security among its member countries.  The organization, which included approximately half of the population and territory of Africa, was a building block of and a source of competition with the AU. Under Qadhafi, Libya was a major player in CEN-SAD as shown by the country’s launching and funding of the Sahel-Saharan Bank for Investment and Commerce (BSIC) and its establishing the Fund for Assistance and Support to Women, Children and Youths. In 2007, CEN-SAD issued a statement “categorically rejecting” AFRICOM and any foreign military presence in any member state. Because of this, US officials were irritated by CEN-SAD, and misrepresented it as a solely Libyan organization.  What CEN-SAD represented was an organization of African states that collectively had the potential to curtail US influence and to chart an independent path for much of the continent.

In view of this, it will come as no surprise that in the month of Qadhafi’s murder, the U.S announced it was sending troops to the Central African Republic, Uganda, South Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. With Qadhafi’s regime gone, AFRICOM announced before Libya could have an election that a new military relationship had been established between AFRICOM and a post-Qadhafi Libyan government that was appointed by the NTC.  Furthermore, the U.S established an Office of Security Cooperation at the U.S Embassy in Tripoli to “help coordinate security assistance, international military education and training and other security cooperation.” CEN-SAD, meanwhile, is all but defunct.

Another key background point to the war on Libya is China’s ongoing competition with Western interests for access and influence in Africa. In 2009, China surpassed the U.S. as Africa’s largest trading partner. The continent supplied China with a third of its imports and was its second largest source of oil. Africa is a continent rich with not only oil but also strategic minerals. The U.S is heavily import-dependent on materials such as columbium, chromium, and cobalt for its weapons manufacturing. Mozambique, South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Congo are major sources of these. Consider in this context Forte’s account of the African Oil Policy Initiative Group, an organization involving Congressional representatives, oil industry lobbyists, and members of the military.  As far back as 2002, this group was calling for an increased American military presence in Africa as a means of securing control of resources, and it identified China and Libya as barriers to this goal.

As NATO’s war in Libyan played out, it was primarily understood within two narratives – a humanitarian one, as well as that of the so-called Arab Spring. Both conceptions suffer from their lack of understanding of the war’s African contexts, which suggest that the continent is at risk of again becoming a global hotspot over which foreign powers battle.  Self-described humanitarians would do well to consider how their advocacy of the Libyan campaign not only caused extensive death and human rights violations but may prove to have helped usher in decades of more war in this continent.

 

NATO War Crimes in Libya


NATO War Crimes in Libya

Although the rationale of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) for entry into Libyan conflict invoked humanitarian principles, the results have proven far from humane. In July 2011, NATO aircraft bombed Libya’s main water supply facility, which provided water to approximately 70 percent of the nation’s population. And, in a failed attempt to appear unbiased and objective, the BBC has revealed, almost a year after the information was relayed by independent media, that British Special Forces played a key role in steering and supervising Libya’s “freedom fighters” to victory.

Censored News Cluster: Human Costs of War and Violence

Michael Collins, “NATO War Crimes: The Wanton Destruction of Sirte,” Global Research, October 15, 2011,http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27092.

Michael Collins, “Smoking Guns: War Crimes in Libya,” TheDaily Censored (blog), November 2, 2011,http://dailycensored.com/2011/11/02/smoking-guns-war-crimes-in-libya.

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey, “NATO’s Ultimate War Crime: Destroying Libya’s Water Supply,” Global Research, August 1, 2011,http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25861.

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey, “NATO War Crime: Libya Water Supply,”Pravda, July 23, 2011, http://english.pravda.ru/news/world/23-07-2011/118577-nato_war_crimes-0.

Franklin Lamb, “Where Have Libya’s Children Gone?” Counterpunch, August 8, 2011,http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/08/08/where-have-libyas-children-gone.

Gerald A. Perreira, “British Intelligence Worked with Al Qaeda to Kill Qaddafi,” Global Research, March 25, 2011,http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23957.

Patrick Martin, “A CIA Commander for the Libyan Rebels,” World Socialist Web Site, March 28, 2011,http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/pers-m28.shtml.

Global Research, “BBC ‘Reveals’ After the Facts how British Special Forces Supervised and Spearheaded Libya Rebels to Victory,” Global Research, February 1, 2012, http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29001.

http://www.mediafreedominternational.org/2012/03/26/nato-war-crimes-in-libya/

http://www.mediafreedominternational.org/2012/04/10/nato-war-crimes-against-libya/

http://www.mediafreedominternational.org/2012/04/02/what-happened-to-the-missing-children-of-libya/

http://www.mediafreedominternational.org/2012/04/07/bbc-reveals-after-the-facts-how-british-special-forces-supervised-and-spearheaded-libya-rebels-to-victory/

Student Researchers: Beatriz Alcazar, Andrea Perez, Robert Block, and Harmen Sidhu (Sonoma State University); Paloma Tur (Universidad Complutense de Madrid)

Faculty and Community Evaluators: Alfredo V. Moran, Bryan Polkey, Luis Luján, and Miguel Álvarez-Peralta (Universidad Complutense de Madrid); Peter Phillips and Gregg Adams (Sonoma State University)

source: projectcensored.org