This paragraph provides a background to the circumstances of this particular editorial.
Today, however, is the 100th day of international air strikes and Gaddafi is still in power. Since Nato took control 88 days ago, support has come from 18 countries, including the UK and France, with 15 enforcing the no-fly zone and launching air-to-ground missiles. Yet not only is Gaddafi still in power; rebel progress around Misrata in the west of Libya has stalled, and the transitional national council in Benghazi says it is desperately short of funds because the $1 billion promised by Western and Arab nations has yet to materialise. In addition, fissures have appeared in the Nato alliance, criticised for being "a confused coalition of the unwilling and unable"
[source : Libya: Nato must be resolute to finish what it began, Editorial, The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jun/26/observer-editorial-nato-libya-100-days, 26th June 2011]
UN SCR 1973 was supposed to provide protection to civilians only.
Yet the editorial clearly calls for NATO to step up to the plate and be used as the Libyan rebel air force.
So, what can be done? How can the original UN mandate to protect the lives of Libyan citizens be honoured quickly and the current stalemate broken without Nato drifting into the illegal waters of pursuing regime change for which it has no mandate? Is it possible to act within resolution 1973 to encourage a chain reaction that may lead to Libyans effecting their own regime change?
The success of the Nato mission is that a no-fly zone and the creation of a protective cordon around Benghazi were accomplished in the first few weeks following the UN vote – undoubtedly saving lives. Nato spokesmen also say that Gaddafi's fighting ability has been degraded by 50%, and many of his entourage have defected.
However, the rebels in the west in the Nafusa mountains and in the port of Misrata insist that without more intensive support from Nato it is difficult to make further advances. They lack the firepower and military discipline to take command on the ground. On the contrary, the rebels appear stranded in a no man's land, served by social networking and mobile phones, but not the aerial support and arms they require.
It is vital that Nato is more proactive both in the air and on the ground to break this current impasse.
Before NATO bombed Libya to smithereens, Libya was the jewel of Africa; stable, with economic development and good infrastructure.
So what has The Guardian to say today about Libya?
The democracy which Libyans were promised after the fall of Colonel Gaddafi in 2011 has so far been like an ever-receding mirage in the desert. It shimmers in the distance, and seems closer as parliaments are elected, governments set up, and meetings held, but somehow the country never gets there.
...The vacuum in Libya has allowed Islamist groups, notably Ansar al-Sharia, to establish themselves, and that in turn has brought American and Nato attention and surveillance. It will take more than a new constitution to overcome this dangerous legacy.
[source : Libya: the mirage of democracy, Editorial, The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/20/editorial-libya-mirage-democracy, 20th February 2014]
As readers will know, Libya was one of seven nations to be targeted in five years after the inside Ziojob 9/11. This plan was revealed to General Wesley Clark. The other six named to Clark were Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Sudan and Somalia. We invaded Iraq in 2003. Israel engineered a war on Lebanon in 2006. There was war on Libya in 2011. And there have been several attempts to engineer a war on Syria since the fake Arab Spring erupted there in 2011.
The Guardian/Observer has said nothing about this plan.
NOTHING!!
Yet it consistently pushes for war in support of this plan.
No comments:
Post a Comment