UN losing poker hand


UN losing poker hand

by

In poker, smart players know that the best thing to do with a weak hand is dump it.  Not so the United Nations. Libya is doubling its stake continuing to back the failing Government of National Accord (GNA), hoping that by reopening its UN base in the capital, the previously fortified ‘Palm City Complex’, things will improve as well as sending in Gurkha ‘Security Guards’.  It might make a difference if they increase the numbers to 500, or even better, a 1,000, then the Gurkhas could wipe the floor with all the Tripoli-based militias.

The UN omit mentioning this. For 200 years the Gurkhas have been the most feared force in the British Army. If anyone can destroy the Tripoli militias, they can, but what’s the point? Why shore up an unelected five-man government?

The GNA was created by the UN two years ago to unite the country and end the civil war. Instead, the GNA’s cabinet are unable even to unite Tripoli, which is ‘controlled’ by various militias. Hence the need for Gurkhas, to stop militias overrunning Palm City, its ostentatious UN compound, itself a provocation to the Libyan people.

The elected parliament in Tobruk, rival to the GNA, is increasingly calling the shots. Thanks to the increasingly popular Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar, Tobruk now controls the majority of the country and its oil infrastructure and ports. The idea that the GNA will ever rule over areas held by Tobruk is laughable. But, having created the GNA, the UN remains determined to back it.  Last week Haftar banned GNA personnel from visiting the east, so much for the alleged French July détente efforts.

What makes the UN case so hopeless is that outside powers are split and at odds – in particular France and Italy – over who to support.

One European country is even pondering supporting the son of the late Colonel Gaddafi, so desperate has the situation become.

Italy supports the GNA, because militias in western Libya are in a position to stop people-smuggling.  However, it faces parliamentary elections in 2018 and politicians are aware the electorate will focus on the immigration issue.

Most migrants from Libya end up in Italy, not France, and for Paris, migration is less important than combating terrorism. Haftar is already combating Islamist terrorists in Libya, making France a natural ally.

“Serraj leverages off of Italian support,” said Jalel Harchaoui, a doctoral candidate in geopolitics and Libyan commentator, adding “and you can be sure Haftar makes use of the prestige of France’s apparent support for his military campaign. On the ground, the inability of foreign states to coordinate among themselves on Libya has always generated more chaos.”

In July, Fayez Serraj, the UN GNA designated prime minister met with Haftar in Paris to sign a peace deal between the two sides. But neither leader actually signed the document. In an interview with France 24, Haftar later said: “Serraj is a good man, but he cannot implement what he agrees to.”

Russia showed its support for Haftar by inviting him aboard an aircraft carrier earlier this year. It has since hedged its bets, insisting it is working for reconciliation by talking to all sides, including the Misrata-based Al-Bunyan Al-Marsoos (BMB).

The BMB militia, surprisingly, pledged its support for an unknown multi-millionaire businessman Basit Igtet, a Swiss based Libyan with alleged links to Israel and designs on becoming president of Libya.

Be clear. The BMB Militia are enemies of Haftar’s LNA.

Lev Dengov, head of the ‘Russia’s Contact Group for a Libyan settlement’, recently said: “Tripoli and Tobruk personnel share the same embassy building in Moscow, engineered by us, to bring them closer to each other.”

Britain is trying to have it both ways. Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, who presumably facilitated the Gurkha’s deployment, visited Serraj to show support, flying east to see Haftar on August 24 at his headquarters, urging the field marshall to keep to the ‘unsigned’ agreement announced in Paris. Why should Haftar? It’s farcical.

The United States has kept a low profile thus far, though rumour has it there has been a shift in policy in the last few days. Expect Rex Tillerson to get involved in the near future.

With the big powers so divided, and the GNA experiment having failed, the new UN envoy, Ghassan Salame, a Lebanese politician, said by some to be distrusted by the Russians, would have done better to dump the GNA.

Instead Salame is planning to send UN staff and ‘British Gurkhas’, disguised as ‘guards’, into the Tripoli cauldron, putting many lives needlessly at risk to support a failed and unelected government.

When will the UN throw in its losing hand? And when will Russia return to the aces it had when it supported Haftar?

Advertisements

The National Commission for Human Rights in Libya calls for the formation of an international commission of inquiry on the assassination of Gaddafi


The National Commission for Human Rights in Libya calls for the formation of an international commission of inquiry on the assassination of Gaddafi

 

Iwan Libya – Agencies:

The National Human Rights Commission in Libya called on the United Nations Secretariat and the International Criminal Court to form an international commission of inquiry into the assassination of the late Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

On Wednesday, the Human Rights Committee issued a statement revealing the role of Qatar and France, and their involvement in the “liquidation” of Gaddafi, until his voice is completely absent and does not disclose any matters related to sensitive international issues.

The organization confirmed that it had information indicating the involvement of the State of Qatar through the former Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani in the killing of Muammar Gaddafi after personally ordering the commander of his own forces to eliminate him as a result of the dangerous information he had in possession of the rulers of Qatar and their role of sabotage and support for terrorist and extremist organizations in Niger Chad, Afghanistan and Somalia, and their attempts to stir up chaos and support opposition forces in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Syria and Yemen.

The organization added that the information and reports that Colonel Gaddafi was killed by the French intelligence agent, on the direct orders of former French President Nicolas Sarkozy, in order to hide information and secrets in possession of, including financial support of former French President Sarkozy in the presidential elections as well as the investment and economic conflict In Africa.

The National Committee for Human Rights in Libya expressed its strong dissatisfaction and condemnation at the continued silence and suspiciousness of the International Criminal Court over the murder of the late Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and his son Mu’tasim Bellah after being captured alive on October 20, 2011. The city of Sirte, considering that the murder of Gaddafi and his son Mu’tasim al-Bilu after their families are alive, their bodies are brutally abused and their burial in an unknown place is a full-fledged war crime and a violation of international humanitarian law and the Geneva Conventions.

The International Criminal Court  (ICC) is to assume its international legal responsibilities by calling for a thorough investigation into the killing of Mu’ammar al-Qadhafi and his son, Mu’tasim Bellah, and identifying the local, regional and international parties involved.

 

 

 

QATAR’S SUPPORT OF THE WORST OF THE WORST IN LIBYA MUST END


QATAR’S SUPPORT OF THE WORST OF THE WORST IN LIBYA MUST END

By

Libyans wave their new national flag (L) and Qatar’s flag during a ceremony announcing the liberation for the country in the eastern city of Benghazi on October 23, 2011 three days after ousted despot Moamer Kadhafi was captured and killed. Photo: Abdullah Doma/AFP/Getty

 

Libya’s eastern-based government joined Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt in cutting ties with Qatar in June, with Foreign Minister Mohammed al-Deri asserting that Doha was “harboring terrorism.” The move reflected longstanding grievances expressed by Libya’s non-Islamist forces about Qatar’s sponsorship of extremists in the war-torn country. And while the meddling in Libya doesn’t get a lot of coverage, it remains one of the key grievances of Qatar’s foes in the current diplomatic crisis.

Since the 2011 revolution, Libya has been the site of a rather nasty proxy war. The UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other traditional Gulf states have backed the eastern-based government and Khalifa Haftar’s Libyan National Army (LNA). Seeking a more Islamist order in Libya, Qatar and Turkey backed the Muslim Brotherhood, and more recently, the Tripoli-based General National Congress (GNC).

According to press reports, Qatar has been sending massive amounts of weapons and cash to Islamist militants battling the Western-backed government in Libya. A March 2013 U.N. report noted that in 2011 and 2012, Qatar violated the U.N. arms embargo by “providing military material to the revolutionary forces through the organization of a large number of flights and the deliveries of a range of arms and ammunition.”

And according to another report in the Egyptian al-Masry al-Youm, Doha has provided more than 750 million euros ($890 million) to extremist groups in Libya since 2011. Arab officials believe that this assistance arrives in Western Libya by way of a commercial airline that is bankrolled by Qatar.

But the Arab states are not simply bothered by Qatar’s support for garden variety Islamists. They allege that Qatar is directly backing the worst of the worst. And they appear to be correct.

According to Kristian Coates Ulrichsen of the Baker Institute for Public Policy, “Qatar developed close links with key Islamist militia commanders [in Libya] such as Abdelhakim Belhadj, once the head of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and, in 2011, the commander of the Tripoli Brigade.” The LIFG is an al-Qaeda affiliate group that was sanctioned by both the United States and the United Nations.

Belhadj twice met with Osama bin Laden, and he was detained by the CIA in 2004. He launched Hizb al-Watan in 2012, which Arab officials say has maintained close ties to LIFG and received continued support from Qatar.

Ulrichsen also notes the connection between Qatar and “Ismael al-Salabi, the leader of one of the best-supplied rebel militias, the Rafallah al-Sahati Companies. Qatar was widely suspected of arming and funding al-Salabi’s group, whose sudden munificence of resources in 2011 earned it the nickname of the ‘Ferrari 17 Brigade.’”

Ismael al-Salabi’s brother, Ali al-Salabi, is a prominent Libyan cleric close to the emir of Qatar. One Egyptian source claims that he maintains close ties to the LIFG. This is a claim echoed by Arab officials familiar with the situation in Libya.

On June 8, the LNA held a press conference alleging proof of Qatar’s malign role in Libya. The LNA charged that Qatari intelligence General Salim Ali al-Jarboui supported al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, and the Muslim Brotherhood by transferring $8 billion from the Qatari Tunisian National Bank to the Housing Bank of Tataouine Governorate in southern Tunisia.

According to the LNA, Qatar supported the assassination of senior officials, facilitated training of Islamist extremists by Hamas, and helped transport Libyan Islamists to Syria. The LNA also presented a letter purportedly penned by Mohammed Hamad Al Hajri, acting charge d’affaires at the Qatar Embassy in Libya, alleging that Qatar had deployed military units to the country.

In June, when Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, and Egypt first issued theirterrorist list” of 59 individuals and 12 entities linked to Qatar, it included one entity (the Benghazi Defense Brigades) and five individuals from Libya. The LNA then released a second list of 75 Libyan individuals and nine organizations tied to Qatar. A third list, issued by the Arab states in late July, include two individuals and six organizations reportedly based in Libya. One highlight of the first list includes Al-Sadiq Abd al-Rahman Ali al-Ghiryani, who previously served the Grand Mufti of Libya, who has called for the destruction of the eastern government.

The allegations of Qatari malign behavior in Libya continue. The Libyan army spokesman just last week described Qatar, Sudan, and Turkey as “the triad of terrorism” in Libya. He also stated that, “a number of Qatari aircraft are regularly landing in Libya in 2017 to support terrorist groups.”

The Libyan war is not likely to be solved anytime soon. Nor is the Gulf crisis with Qatar, for that matter. But putting a stop to Qatar’s meddling in Libya might make it easier to solve both.

Hidden Camera in Saudi Arabia SHOCKING


Hidden Camera in Saudi Arabia SHOCKING

Here is a video showing the truth of Saudi Arabia and its Allies.

For all of those people who believe that Obama, Hillary, Cameron, Sarkozy, Merkel and Soros in other words the  CABAL are fighting terrorism will see in this video is exactly the opposite. They are assisting them training them and also helping them to sent all the refugees into Europe. Although the video do not mention the Germans and French they are also involved please watch it and spread the word.

David Cameron, Libya and Disaster


David Cameron, Libya and Disaster

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark

The UK Foreign Affairs Committee was a long time coming with this judgment, but when it came, it provided a firm reminder about how far the 2011 intervention against the Gaddafi regime was not merely flawed but calamitous in its consequences. There had been no coherent strategy on the part of the Cameron government; the campaign had not been “informed by accurate intelligence.”

For members of the committee, it was clear that the then UK prime minister, David Cameron, had to carry a rather large can on the issue. “Through his decision-making in the National Security Council, former prime minister David Cameron was ultimately responsible for the failure to develop a coherent Libya strategy.”

The consequential nature of this bloody and ultimately catastrophic blunder of international relations triggered continental instability, with a foul global aftertaste. The collapse of Libya into territories battled over with sectarian fury and the death of Muammar Gaddafi unsettled the ground in Mali. It also propelled violence through North African and the Middle East.

It is hard to rank the levels of severity in what went wrong in the aftermath of the Libyan collapse. Could a finger be pointed at the militia hothouse that was created within the state? (Tripoli alone currently hosts somewhere up to 150.) What of the external outrage stemming from it?

Near the top must be the conflict in northern Mali, precipitated by members of the Tuareg ethnic group who had long supplied Gaddafi with soldiers. Armed to the teeth, the MNLA, with the assistance of such Islamist groups as Ansar Dine, commenced a separatist action that in turn encouraged interventions by al-Qaeda sponsored Islamist groups.

Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb eventually became one of the big and most menacing players, busying itself with operations beyond Mali, including Algeria, Niger, Mauritania, Tunisia and Morocco.

Meshed between these skirmishing groups were a French-led intervention in 2013 that petered out, followed by a continuing peace keeping operation which has long since ditched the word “peace” in its equation.

Not even the presence of 12,000 UN soldiers under the mission known as MINUSMA has done much to prevent the fraying of that land, despite the June 2015 peace deal. Since 2013, the mission has taken over a hundred casualties, a deal of it occasioned by the ubiquitous landmine and roadside bomb.

While Mali burned with fury, other African states felt the aftershocks, notably through a huge, easily accessible arms market that was not brought under control after Gaddafi’s fall. Marty Reardon, Senior Vice President of The Soufran Group, a US-based security consultancy, surprised no one in telling The Independent that Libya’s implosion led to the arming of “well-armed and militant groups” in Tunisia, Algeria, Niger, Chad, Sudan and Egypt.[1]

In this belligerent free for all, jihadi groups jostle and scratch for gains, creating a further pool of radicalised fighters who will, in time, find nowhere else to go. The Libyan collapse, in other words, has created a certain type of roving tourist jihadi, notching up points with each campaign.

Crispin Blunt, who chaired the committee, scoldingly suggested that the 2011 intervention was based on “erroneous assumptions and an incomplete understanding of the country.” This kindergarten world view did not stop there.

Having made a right royal mess, it was incumbent on France and the UK to right the ship, with a “responsibility to support Libyan economic and political reconstruction.” This responsibility was also a muddled one, with British and French institution builders profoundly ignorant about local matters. Having pushed Humpty Dumpty over, they showed scant knowledge on how to put him back together.

The sense of culpability for Cameron is further compounded by the nonsense the intervention made of such international humanitarian doctrines as the responsibility to protect. There was always a sense that the French-UK led mission was struggling for a plausible alibi, but recourse to the nonsensical notion of civilian protection reared its head.

That door was opened by the hoovering effect of UN Security Council Resolution 1973, which authorised “all necessary means” to protect that most wonderful contrivance, irrespective of what those in the host state thought.[2] Find the civilians and save the day.

While it remains the most insidious of contrivances at international law, that responsibility to protect could be said to have been discharged rapidly – after the initial round of strikes. In the words of the MPs, “If the primary object of the coalition intervention was the urgent need to protect civilians in Benghazi, then this objective was achieved in March 2011 in less than 24 hours.”

This was not to be. Instead, the intervention ballooned into a monstrous matter of regime change, with no attempt made to “pause military action” when Benghazi was being secured. “This meant that a limited intervention to protect civilians drifted into an opportunist policy of regime change by military means.” Docks in international criminal courts should be warmed by such adventurous men.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

Notes

[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/libya-report-britain-uk-gaddafi-civil-war-david-cameron-responsible-terrorism-isis-al-qaeda-mali-a7309821.html

[2] http://www.elac.ox.ac.uk/downloads/Welsh%20Civilian%20Protection%20in%20Libya.pdf

The original source of this article is Global Research