Libya: Only China And Russia Can Stop Emperor Sarkozy's Madness
Russia, China, Brazil and India must attack imperial hubris in Africa and call for a new Security Council meeting on Libya
[Black Star News Editorial]
With the rejection of the African Union's peace proposal it's now clear that nothing short of assassination or ouster of Muammar al-Quathafi will satisfy the barbarian, France's Nicolas Sarkozy.
Britain's David Cameron has also latched on to France's neo-Imperial mission in the Sahara.
Benghazi is not interested in a political settlement so long as it believes NATO will help Benghazi march all the way to Tripoli. Only major countries like China and Russia, joined by Brazil and India, can raise enough global pressure, outrage and opposition for Paris and London to back off their fixation and give peace a chance.
South African President Jacob Zuma traveled to Libya this past weekend leading an African Union (AU) delegation that included three other presidents and a foreign affairs minister. While al-Quathafi reportedly accepted the roadmap offered --a ceasfire; humanitarian relief corridoor; and political negotiations including transitional government towards new dispensation-- Benghazi, prompted by Sarkozy and Cameron rejected the peace proposal.
Meanwhile the delegation was maligned because Libya was a major donor to the African Union's secretariat. By that logic alone, the United Nations, whose biggest benefactor is the United States, should also have no credibility when the U.S. is involved in any UN activities. Of the AU plan, an article in today's Wall Street Journal states, "The proposal was drawn up with Col. Gadhafi's backing by African leaders indebted to him for his years of largess to their small, impoverished nations." Wonder what South Africa's Zuma thinks of that.
How would any combatant side refuse to talk peace when the whole purported reason for the United Nation's and now NATO's involvement in Libya was to "protect civilians" in the civil war. Or is it that the lies can't be maintained any longer and that it was always about regime-change and pushed by French and British oil interests?
This is the most shameful corruption of a United Nations resolution in the history of the organization.
This must also be a particularly bitter and humiliating pill for President Zuma to swallow. His country was one of three African countries --the others being Nigeria and Gabon-- that voted for Resolution 1973 which authorized the use of any necessary means to protect civilians in Libya. Perhaps Zuma was so naive and not ready for prime time that he actually believed France and Britain cared about civilians in Libya or anywhere in Africa for that matter.
Benghazi does not have the military capacity, or maybe even popular Libya-wide support, to depose al-Quathafi. Benghazi, by promising oil concessions to Western countries that help in the overthrow of al-Quathafi --as reported on the front page of The Financial Times-- has been able to rent NATO as its own mercenary airforce.
Just today France and Britain called on NATO to even step up the bombardment of Libya in the most brazen display of unchecked neo-colonial and imperial hubris in Africa. Can you imagine a group of African countries firing missiles from ships and from jet fighters at a European country in the midst of a civil war under the guise of "saving civilians"?
It's a wonder that African countries are allowing this outrage without even threatening action.
Sarkozy and Cameron want to fight this war all the way to Tripoli, while presumably "saving" the lives of Libyan civilians along the way. The rest of the world needs to stand up collectively and tell these two barbarians to stop their madness. They are salivating over post-Quathafi oil concessions.
People like Zuma, as they watch the bombardment of Africa on CNN, must feel as helpless, hopeless and impotent as the African chiefs felt when colonists, having carved up Africa at the Berlin Conference in 1884-1885 started showing up to govern. The German colonist Carl Peters obtained "Treaties of Eternal Friendship" to "rescue civilians" from "barbarity" in large parts of Africa; and take over territory for Germany, including in what's today Tanzania.
The African chiefs were duped into "signing" alleged agreements with the Europeans who then used these "documents" to seize territory and resources throughout Africa. Later generation of African leaders might have wondered how the chiefs could have done such a thing.
Today, in the 21st Century, the contemporary chiefs, including Zuma, were duped once again; tricked into endorsing United Nations Resolution 1973 now being used by France and Britain to dismember Libya with an eye towards oil concessions.
Zuma and the African Union won't be able to undo this disaster in the Sahara alone since Sarkozy and Cameron have shown that Africa's opinion don't matter to them.
Russia, China, Brazil and India must speak out loudly and attack this imperial hubris. They must call for another Security Council meeting on Libya in light of new information, including the report in The New York Times on April 1, that Sarkozy intended to attack Libya with or without UN approval and because NATO has clearly exceeded the scope, mandate and the intention of Resolution 1973.
"Speaking Truth To Empower."
Ann GarrisonNovember 30,2013 @ 12:14 PM
It was sexy to be against the war back then. He was probably in it to get laid.
carpinteyrobwmJuly 14,2013 @ 09:29 PM
carpinteyrobwmJuly 14,2013 @ 08:34 PM
amslctciikJuly 13,2013 @ 01:47 AM
http://youngsgear.us - louis vuitton bags cheap on the inside...
No Record Exist!!