DIE SCHURKEN-STAATEN DIESER WELT SITZEN IN DER NATO/NATO-Soldaten sind Mörder/NATO soldiers are murderers
Über mich
- Lutz Schindler
- Dresden, Sachsen, Germany
- Völker hört die Signale! Gestern der Irak, heute Libyen, morgen Syrien und dann die ganze Welt! Das ist der Kriegsschrei der „Neuen Weltordnung“ und gleichzeitig die Abkehr von Menschlichkeit und das Ignorieren von Völkerrecht und UN-Charta! Fallt denen in die Arme, die das Töten von Menschen zur Alltäglichkeit werden lassen wollen! Es dient nur Wenigen und nicht Euch! Steht endlich auf und lasst euch nicht belügen! Rettet die Humanität und kämpft für eine friedliche Erde! Der Mensch ist das Maß aller Dinge und nicht die Wenigen, die über Leichenberge ihre Interessen durchsetzen wollen!
Montag, 30. Mai 2011
Sonntag, 29. Mai 2011
Samstag, 28. Mai 2011
Freitag, 27. Mai 2011
Donnerstag, 26. Mai 2011
Mittwoch, 25. Mai 2011
Montag, 23. Mai 2011
Sonntag, 22. Mai 2011
Samstag, 21. Mai 2011
Freitag, 20. Mai 2011
Donnerstag, 19. Mai 2011
Mounting Evidence of Rebel Atrocities in Libya
Aus: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/mounting-evidence-of-rebel-atrocities-in-libya/
While the International Criminal Court has announced that it is investigating charges of war crimes against Muammar al-Gaddafi and other members of the Libyan regime, harrowing video evidence has emerged that appears to show atrocities committed by anti-Gaddafi rebels. Among other things, the footage depicts summary executions, a prisoner being lynched, the desecration of corpses, and even a beheading. The targets of the most serious abuse are frequently black African prisoners. The ultimate source of the footage appears to be rebel forces or sympathizers themselves.
While the International Criminal Court has announced that it is investigating charges of war crimes against Muammar al-Gaddafi and other members of the Libyan regime, harrowing video evidence has emerged that appears to show atrocities committed by anti-Gaddafi rebels. Among other things, the footage depicts summary executions, a prisoner being lynched, the desecration of corpses, and even a beheading. The targets of the most serious abuse are frequently black African prisoners. The ultimate source of the footage appears to be rebel forces or sympathizers themselves.
(Warning: Due to the graphic nature of the videos linked below, viewer discretion is advised.)
What is probably the most harrowing of the clips depicts a public beheading. A man with a long knife can be seen alternately sawing and hacking at the neck of a man who has been suspended upside-down. The victim’s inert body is soaked in blood. The beheading takes place in front of a burnt-out building in what appears to be a public square. The Dutch public broadcaster NOS has identified the location as the main square of the rebel capital of Benghazi.
A crowd numbering at least in the hundreds cheers on the assailants. At one point, a man begins chanting “Libya Hurra!”: “Free Libya!” According to the NOS translation, someone can be heard saying, “He looks like an African.” As the principal assailant begins to saw at the victim’s neck, members of the crowd yell “Allahu Akbar!” Dozens of members of the crowd can be seen filming the proceedings with digital cameras or cell phones. (See clip #1 here orhere.)
A second clip depicts a black African prisoner being aggressively questioned and beaten. The man is alleged to be a pro-Gaddafi mercenary. Extracts from the footage have been broadcast on both the Libyan state television Al-Libya and on Al-Jazeera. More complete “raw footage,” which is available on YouTube, shows the beating continuing even after the man is lying face down on the ground, the surrounding concrete splattered with his blood. By way of photographs and identity papers, a video from an unknown source on YouTube identifies the victim as a Libyan citizen and a regular member of the Libyan army. (See clip #2 here.)
Similar footage of rebels demanding a confession from an alleged black African mercenary has also been shown on Western television. It should be noted that even just the mere exposure of a prisoner to “public curiosity” constitutes a violation of the Geneva Conventions – to say nothing of acts of intimidation and abuse or the outright lynching that appears to be documented in the above clip.
A third clip shows a group of prisoners being questioned by an interrogator. Several of the prisoners are wearing army uniforms. A rough English translation has been added to a posting of the clip on YouTube. According to the translation, the interrogator appears to accuse members of the group of having opened fire on civilians. The prisoners insist that they were fired upon and that they only opened fire in self-defense.
As in other clips, a black prisoner is singled out for particular abuse. Barking out accusations, the interrogator hovers over him with what appears to be a sort of machete in his hand. In a later shot, what appears to be the same group of men is seen lying on the ground in pools of blood. Their eyes have been bound and they appear to have been shot in the back of the head. Persons walking among the corpses can be heard shouting “Allahu Akbar!” The footage was shown on a broadcast on Al-Libya television. But the “raw footage” and other apparently related footage is also available on YouTube. The actual shooting of the prisoners is not shown. (See clip #3 here orhere.)
In a fourth clip, men can be seen holding up what appears to be charred human remains to the cheers of an assembled crowd. As in the beheading video, numerous members of the crowd can be seen filming the proceedings on digital cameras and cell phones. One of the “presenters” waves the red, black, and green flag of the Libyan rebellion. So too does a member of the crowd. A second group, again waving the flag of the rebellion, can later be seen parading around what appears to be the same remains on a rooftop. A smaller clump of carbonized matter receives particular attention from the revelers. According to one posting on YouTube, the object in question is the victim’s heart. (See clip #4 here.)
A fifth clip shows two black African prisoners who have been tightly bound from head to foot. Online postings suggest that they were captured by rebels in Misrata: a western Libyan city that was conquered by the rebels near the outset of the rebellion and that is presently the scene of heavy fighting. One of the men appears to be badly wounded; the other whimpers as he attempts in vain to wriggle free from his bindings. (See clip #5 here or here.)
Several other clips, which are available on YouTube, show the corpses of black Africans being publicly displayed and kicked and otherwise abused by “protestors.”
At first glance, it might seem odd that the rebels would document their own atrocities. But given all the indications that the eastern Libyan heartland of the rebellion is a bastion of jihadist militancy, it is in fact not so odd. It is standard jihadist procedure to film beheadings and other sorts of atrocities committed against captured enemy soldiers and hostages.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/mounting-evidence-of-rebel-atrocities-in-libya/
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/mounting-evidence-of-rebel-atrocities-in-libya/
Mittwoch, 18. Mai 2011
Dienstag, 17. Mai 2011
War Crimes and the Bombing of Libya
Targeting Infrastructure
War Crimes and the Bombing of Libya
By CONN HALLINAN
Gen. Sir David Richards, "Britain's top military commander," is proposing that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)ganization (NATO) target Libyan "infrastructure," including electrical power grids and fuel dumps, in government held areas.
Frustrated by the two-month old stalemate, Gen. Richards told the New York Times that "The vice is closing on [Muammar el-] Qaddadi, but we need to increase the pressure further through more intense military activity." The British are playing a major role in the bombing campaign, and Gen. Richards was in Naples, the command center for the war in Libya, when he talked with the Times.
The Times went on to write, "The General suggested that NATO should be freed from restraints that precluded attacking infrastructure targets."
Let us be clear what "infrastructure" means: "The fundamental facilities and systems serving a country, city or area, as transportation and communication systems, power plants and schools" (Random House Dictionary, Second Edition).
Now let's see what the 1977 Protocol Addition to Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 say on the business of attacking "infrastructure."
"In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives."
Part IV, Section I, Article. 48
"It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuff, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works…"
Article 54
"It is prohibited for the Parties to the conflict to attack, by any means whatsoever, non-defended localities…"
Article 59
In short, you can't bomb power plants, electrical grids, water pumping plants, or transport systems that service the civilian population, even if the military also benefits from them. As Article 50 states: "The presence within the civilian population of individuals that do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character."
The pressure to step up the bombing and widen the delineation of targets reflects the fact that the war has turned into a stalemate. "We need to do more," Gen. Richards told the Times, "If we do not up the ante now there is a risk that the conflict could result in Qaddafi clinging to power."
That last statement appears to be a violation of United Nations Resolution 1973, which called for "protection of civilians," a "no-fly zone," "sanctions," a "freeze of assets" and an "arms embargo." Nowhere does 1973 mention regime change and getting rid of Qaddafi.
So are we being dragged into a war whose goals violate UN Resolution 1973, and whose means violate the Geneva Conventions for the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts? It is hard not to answer that question in anything but the affirmative.
Conn Hallinan can be read at dispatchesfromtheedgeblog-wordpress.com
Montag, 16. Mai 2011
Internationaler Strafgerichtshof
Es ist schon ein Witz, leider ein trauriger, wenn man gegen die Regierung Gaddafi ein Verfahren durch den internationalen Strafgerichtshof durchführen will. Mit einem Lügenkonstrukt , sie hätte auf Bürger schießen lassen, obwohl diese Bürger, besser gesagt, die sogenannten Rebellen, von Anfang an bewaffnet gegen den libyschen Staat vorgegangen sind! In dieser Welt, die sich den kapitalistischen Staaten unterordnen soll, wird das Recht auf den Kopf gestellt. Da sind die USA und die anderen Nato-Länder, die alle Anklagepunkte dieses Gerichtshofes erfüllen, dürfen sich aber ungehindert und straffrei durch die Welt morden!
Kein Amerikaner stand je vor einem internationalen Tribunal, für seine Kriegsverbrechen und Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Irak oder jetzt in Libyen, in dem dort die Zivilbevölkerung durch die Nato bombardiert wird!
Kein Amerikaner stand je vor einem internationalen Tribunal, für seine Kriegsverbrechen und Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Irak oder jetzt in Libyen, in dem dort die Zivilbevölkerung durch die Nato bombardiert wird!
Sonntag, 15. Mai 2011
Samstag, 14. Mai 2011
Freitag, 13. Mai 2011
Mittwoch, 11. Mai 2011
Dienstag, 10. Mai 2011
Montag, 9. Mai 2011
Die Infamie der NATO
Eine interessanter Fakt:
Ein „Experte“ am Wochenende im 2.Deutschen Fernsehen sagte sinngemäß: „Man könnte nicht gegen Syrien vorgehen wie in Libyen, da Syrien Verbündete hat! Libyen stände allein da!“
Ist das nicht auch entlarvend für die NATO und ihrer Verbündeten?
Ein „Experte“ am Wochenende im 2.Deutschen Fernsehen sagte sinngemäß: „Man könnte nicht gegen Syrien vorgehen wie in Libyen, da Syrien Verbündete hat! Libyen stände allein da!“
Ist das nicht auch entlarvend für die NATO und ihrer Verbündeten?
Mittwoch, 4. Mai 2011
David Camerons Begabung – Krieg und Rassismus für die Anderen und für uns
John Pilger
Der europäisch-amerikanische Überfall auf Libyen hat nichts damit zu tun, dass jemand beschützt werden soll, solcherlei Unsinn glauben nur unheilbar Naive. Er ist die Antwort des Westens auf die Volkserhebungen in strategisch wichtigen, ressourcenreichen Regionen der Erde und der Beginn eines Zermürbungskrieges gegen den neuen imperialen Konkurrenten China.
Präsident Obamas historische Rolle steht jetzt fest. Er ist der erste schwarze Präsident Amerikas, der in Afrika einmarschieren wird. Sein Angriff gegen Libyen wird vom Africa Command der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika durchgeführt, das 2007 gegründet wurde, um die lukrativen natürlichen Ressourcen des Kontinents gegen die verarmten Völker Afrikas und den schnell wachsenden wirtschaftlichen Einfluss Chinas abzusichern. Libyen ist gemeinsam mit Angola und Nigeria Chinas hauptsächliche Erdölquelle. Während amerikanische, britische und französische Kriegsflugzeuge derzeit „böse“ und „gute“ Libyer in Brand setzen, ist die Evakuierung von 30.000 chinesischen Arbeitern im Gang, vielleicht für immer. Behauptungen von Politikern und Medien des Westens, dass ein „geistesgestörter und krimineller Oberst Gaddafi“ einen „Völkermord“ an seinem eigenen Volk plant, warten noch immer auf Beweise. Das weckt Erinnerungen an die betrügerischen Behauptungen, mit denen eine „humanitäre Intervention“ in den Kosovo, die endgültige Aufteilung Jugoslawiens und die Errichtung des größten Militärstützpunktes der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika in Europa in die Wege geleitet wurden.
Auch die Einzelheiten klingen vertraut. Die libyschen „pro-Demokratie-Rebellen“ stehen laut Berichten unter dem Kommando von Colonel Khalifa Haftar, der gemäß einer Studie der Jamestown Foundation in den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika 1988 die Libyan National Army ins Leben rief „mit kräftiger Unterstützung durch die Central Intelligence Agency“. In den letzten 20 Jahren lebte Colonel Haftar in der Nähe von Langley, Virginia, Heimat der CIA, die ihm auch ein Ausbildungslager zur Verfügung stellt. Die afghanischen Mujahedin, aus denen al-Qaeda hervorging, und der irakische Nationalkongress, der die Lügen von Bush/Blair über den Irak schriftlich ausarbeitete, wurden auf die selbe ehrenwerte Weise gefördert, im lauschigen Langley.
Zu Libyens weiteren „Rebellen”führern gehören Mustafa Abdul Jalil, Gaddafis Justizminister bis Februar, und General Abdel-Fattah Younes, Gaddafis Innenminister: beide mit respekteinflößender Reputation für die grausame Unterdrückung von abweichenden Meinungen. In Libyen gibt es Bürgerkrieg und Stammeskrieg, in denen auch die öffentliche Empörung über Gaddafis Umgang mit den Menschenrechten eine Rolle spielt. Allerdings ist es die Unabhängigkeit Libyens, nicht die Natur seines Regimes, die für den Westen unerträglich ist in einer Region von Vasallen, und an dieser Feindseligkeit hat sich kaum etwas geändert in den 42 Jahren, die vergangen sind, seit Gaddafi den feudalistischen König Idris stürzte, einen der verhassteren vom Westen unterstützten Tyrannen. Mit seinem Beduinenzirkus und bizarren Auftritten gab Gaddafi schon lange einen idealen „verrückten Hund“ ab, wegen dem jetzt tapfere Piloten der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika, des Vereinigten Königreichs und Frankreichs Stadtviertel in Tripoli bombardieren müssen, darunter eine Entbindungsklinik und ein kardiologisches Zentrum. In der letzten Bombardierungsaktion der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika im Jahr 1986 schaffte man es, seine Adoptivtochter umzubringen.
Was die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika, das Vereinigte Königreich und Frankreich erreichen wollen ist das Gegenteil einer Volksbefreiung. Indem sie die Anstrengungen der wirklichen libyschen Demokraten und Nationalisten untergraben, ihr Land sowohl von einem Diktator als auch von denen zu befreien, die vom Ausland korrumpiert sind, ist es dem Lärm und der Raserei aus Washington, London und Paris gelungen, die Erinnerung an die Tage der Hoffnung in Tunis und Kairo im Januar abzuschwächen, und wurden viele, die von Herzen dabei gewesen waren, von dem Ziel abgelenkt, nicht zuzulassen, dass ihre Erfolge still und heimlich gestohlen wurden. Am 23. März erließ das von den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika gestützte ägyptische Militär eine Verordnung, durch die alle Streiks und Proteste verboten wurden. Darüber wurde im Westen kaum berichtet. Nachdem jetzt Gaddafi als Dämon etabliert ist, kann Israel, das wahre Krebsgeschwür, weitermachen mit seinem großflächigen Landraub und mit Vertreibungen. Facebook ist unter zionistischen Druck gekommen, eine Seite zu entfernen, die zu einem allumfassenden palästinensischen Aufstand – einer „Dritten Intifada“ – am 15. Mai aufruft.
Nichts von alledem sollte überraschen. Die Geschichte lässt nichts geringeres vermuten als die Art von Machenschaft, die von zwei ranghöheren Diplomaten der Vereinten Nationen enthüllt wurde, die mit der Asia Times sprachen. Als sie wissen wollten, warum die UNO nicht eine Untersuchungskommission nach Libyen schickte, anstatt dieses Land anzugreifen, wurde ihnen gesagt, dass zwischen dem Weißen Haus und Saudiarabien ein Handel abgeschlossen worden sei. Eine „Koalition“ der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika würde den aufsässigen Gaddafi „entfernen“, wenn die Saudis den Volksaufstand in Bahrain niederschlagen. Letzteres wurde erreicht und der blutige König von Bahrain wird ein Gast bei der königlichen Hochzeit in London sein.
Die Verkörperung dieser Reaktion ist David Cameron, dessen einzige wirkliche Aufgabe darin bestand, als PR-Mann für den Aufkäufer von Anlagen der TV-Industrie Michael Green zu fungieren. Cameron tourte durch die Golfregion, um den vom Vereinigten Königreich erfundenen Diktaturen Waffen zu verkaufen, als sich die Menschen im Jemen gegen Abdullah Saleh erhoben; am 18. März ermordete Salehs Regime 52 Demonstranten. Cameron hatte dazu nichts bedeutsames zu sagen. Jemen ist „einer von uns,“ wie das Außenministerium ihrer Majestät gerne sagt. Im Februar offenbarte sich Cameron in einer Attacke gegen wie er es nannte „staatlichen Multikulturalismus“ – die Tarnbezeichnung für Moslems. Er sagte: „Wir brauchen einen Haufen weniger von der Toleranz der letzten Jahre.“ Er bekam Beifall von Marine Le Pen, der Führerin von Frankreichs faschistischer Nationaler Front. „Das ist genau die Art von Stellungnahme, die uns 30 Jahre lang aus dem öffentlichen Leben ausgeschlossen hat,“ sagte sie der Financial Times. „Ich kann ihm nur gratulieren.“
Am Höhepunkt seiner Habgier produzierte das britische Empire David Camerons als Restposten. Im Gegensatz zu vielen der viktorianischen „Zivilisatoren“ kamen die heutigen Schreibtischkrieger in Westminster – wie etwa William Hague, Liam Fox und der tückische Nick Clegg – nie in Berührung mit dem Leiden und Blutvergießen, die, weit entfernt in kultureller und örtlicher Hinsicht, die Konsequenzen ihrer Äußerungen und Handlungen bilden. Mit ihrem schwächlich belanglosen, immer geringschätzigen Auftreten sind sie im Ausland die gleichen Feiglinge wie zuhause. Krieg und Rassismus und die Zerstörung von Großbritanniens hart erkämpfter sozialer Demokratie sind ihre Begabung. Denken Sie daran, wenn Sie demnächst mit Hunderttausenden auf die Straße gehen, weil Ihnen nichts anderes übrig bleibt.
erschienen am 9. April 2011 auf > www.antiwar.com
False pretense for war in Libya?
ALAN J. KUPERMAN
False pretense for war in Libya?
EVIDENCE IS now in that President Barack Obama grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya. The president claimed that intervention was necessary to prevent a “bloodbath’’ in Benghazi, Libya’s second-largest city and last rebel stronghold.
But Human Rights Watch has released data on Misurata, the next-biggest city in Libya and scene of protracted fighting, revealing that Moammar Khadafy is not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government.
Misurata’s population is roughly 400,000. In nearly two months of war, only 257 people — including combatants — have died there. Of the 949 wounded, only 22 — less than 3 percent — are women. If Khadafy were indiscriminately targeting civilians, women would comprise about half the casualties.
Obama insisted that prospects were grim without intervention. “If we waited one more day, Benghazi . . . could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.’’ Thus, the president concluded, “preventing genocide’’ justified US military action.
But intervention did not prevent genocide, because no such bloodbath was in the offing. To the contrary, by emboldening rebellion, US interference has prolonged Libya’s civil war and the resultant suffering of innocents.
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, which together have a population greater than Benghazi.
Libyan forces did kill hundreds as they regained control of cities. Collateral damage is inevitable in counter-insurgency. And strict laws of war may have been exceeded.
But Khadafy’s acts were a far cry from Rwanda, Darfur, Congo, Bosnia, and other killing fields. Libya’s air force, prior to imposition of a UN-authorized no-fly zone, targeted rebel positions, not civilian concentrations. Despite ubiquitous cellphones equipped with cameras and video, there is no graphic evidence of deliberate massacre. Images abound of victims killed or wounded in crossfire — each one a tragedy — but that is urban warfare, not genocide.
Nor did Khadafy ever threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The “no mercy’’ warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libya’s leader promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.’’ Khadafy even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight “to the bitter end.’’
If bloodbath was unlikely, how did this notion propel US intervention? The actual prospect in Benghazi was the final defeat of the rebels. To avoid this fate, they desperately concocted an impending genocide to rally international support for “humanitarian’’ intervention that would save their rebellion.
On March 15, Reuters quoted a Libyan opposition leader in Geneva claiming that if Khadafy attacked Benghazi, there would be “a real bloodbath, a massacre like we saw in Rwanda.’’ Four days later, US military aircraft started bombing. By the time Obama claimed that intervention had prevented a bloodbath, The New York Times already had reported that “the rebels feel no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda’’ against Khadafy and were “making vastly inflated claims of his barbaric behavior.’’
It is hard to know whether the White House was duped by the rebels or conspired with them to pursue regime-change on bogus humanitarian grounds. In either case, intervention quickly exceeded the UN mandate of civilian protection by bombing Libyan forces in retreat or based in bastions of Khadafy support, such as Sirte, where they threatened no civilians.
The net result is uncertain. Intervention stopped Khadafy’s forces from capturing Benghazi, saving some lives. But it intensified his crackdown in western Libya to consolidate territory quickly. It also emboldened the rebels to resume their attacks, briefly recapturing cities along the eastern and central coast, such as Ajdabiya, Brega, and Ras Lanuf, until they outran supply lines and retreated.
Each time those cities change hands, they are shelled by both sides — killing, wounding, and displacing innocents. On March 31, NATO formally warned the rebels to stop attacking civilians. It is poignant to recall that if not for intervention, the war almost surely would have ended last month.
In his speech explaining the military action in Libya, Obama embraced the noble principle of the responsibility to protect — which some quickly dubbed the Obama Doctrine — calling for intervention when possible to prevent genocide. Libya reveals how this approach, implemented reflexively, may backfire by encouraging rebels to provoke and exaggerate atrocities, to entice intervention that ultimately perpetuates civil war and humanitarian suffering.
Alan J. Kuperman, a professor of public affairs at the University of Texas, is author of “The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention’’ and co-editor of “Gambling on Humanitarian Intervention.’’
© Copyright 2011 Globe Newspaper Company.
False pretense for war in Libya?
EVIDENCE IS now in that President Barack Obama grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya. The president claimed that intervention was necessary to prevent a “bloodbath’’ in Benghazi, Libya’s second-largest city and last rebel stronghold.
But Human Rights Watch has released data on Misurata, the next-biggest city in Libya and scene of protracted fighting, revealing that Moammar Khadafy is not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government.
Misurata’s population is roughly 400,000. In nearly two months of war, only 257 people — including combatants — have died there. Of the 949 wounded, only 22 — less than 3 percent — are women. If Khadafy were indiscriminately targeting civilians, women would comprise about half the casualties.
Obama insisted that prospects were grim without intervention. “If we waited one more day, Benghazi . . . could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.’’ Thus, the president concluded, “preventing genocide’’ justified US military action.
But intervention did not prevent genocide, because no such bloodbath was in the offing. To the contrary, by emboldening rebellion, US interference has prolonged Libya’s civil war and the resultant suffering of innocents.
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, which together have a population greater than Benghazi.
Libyan forces did kill hundreds as they regained control of cities. Collateral damage is inevitable in counter-insurgency. And strict laws of war may have been exceeded.
But Khadafy’s acts were a far cry from Rwanda, Darfur, Congo, Bosnia, and other killing fields. Libya’s air force, prior to imposition of a UN-authorized no-fly zone, targeted rebel positions, not civilian concentrations. Despite ubiquitous cellphones equipped with cameras and video, there is no graphic evidence of deliberate massacre. Images abound of victims killed or wounded in crossfire — each one a tragedy — but that is urban warfare, not genocide.
Nor did Khadafy ever threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The “no mercy’’ warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libya’s leader promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.’’ Khadafy even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight “to the bitter end.’’
If bloodbath was unlikely, how did this notion propel US intervention? The actual prospect in Benghazi was the final defeat of the rebels. To avoid this fate, they desperately concocted an impending genocide to rally international support for “humanitarian’’ intervention that would save their rebellion.
On March 15, Reuters quoted a Libyan opposition leader in Geneva claiming that if Khadafy attacked Benghazi, there would be “a real bloodbath, a massacre like we saw in Rwanda.’’ Four days later, US military aircraft started bombing. By the time Obama claimed that intervention had prevented a bloodbath, The New York Times already had reported that “the rebels feel no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda’’ against Khadafy and were “making vastly inflated claims of his barbaric behavior.’’
It is hard to know whether the White House was duped by the rebels or conspired with them to pursue regime-change on bogus humanitarian grounds. In either case, intervention quickly exceeded the UN mandate of civilian protection by bombing Libyan forces in retreat or based in bastions of Khadafy support, such as Sirte, where they threatened no civilians.
The net result is uncertain. Intervention stopped Khadafy’s forces from capturing Benghazi, saving some lives. But it intensified his crackdown in western Libya to consolidate territory quickly. It also emboldened the rebels to resume their attacks, briefly recapturing cities along the eastern and central coast, such as Ajdabiya, Brega, and Ras Lanuf, until they outran supply lines and retreated.
Each time those cities change hands, they are shelled by both sides — killing, wounding, and displacing innocents. On March 31, NATO formally warned the rebels to stop attacking civilians. It is poignant to recall that if not for intervention, the war almost surely would have ended last month.
In his speech explaining the military action in Libya, Obama embraced the noble principle of the responsibility to protect — which some quickly dubbed the Obama Doctrine — calling for intervention when possible to prevent genocide. Libya reveals how this approach, implemented reflexively, may backfire by encouraging rebels to provoke and exaggerate atrocities, to entice intervention that ultimately perpetuates civil war and humanitarian suffering.
Alan J. Kuperman, a professor of public affairs at the University of Texas, is author of “The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention’’ and co-editor of “Gambling on Humanitarian Intervention.’’
© Copyright 2011 Globe Newspaper Company.
http://www.businessinsider.com/libyan-rebels-war-crimes-2011-4
https://www.facebook.com/pages/STOP-THE-WAR-IN-LIBYA-WE-DEMAND-IT/213018878711849#%21/pages/STOP-THE-WAR-IN-LIBYA-WE-DEMAND-IT/213018878711849
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/04/14/false_pretense_for_war_in_libya/?camp=misc%3Aon%3Ashare%3Aarticle
https://www.facebook.com/pages/STOP-THE-WAR-IN-LIBYA-WE-DEMAND-IT/213018878711849#%21/pages/STOP-THE-WAR-IN-LIBYA-WE-DEMAND-IT/213018878711849
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/04/14/false_pretense_for_war_in_libya/?camp=misc%3Aon%3Ashare%3Aarticle
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)