Libya Intervention is creating problems instead of solving them
Published on
Air strikes to Libya started after related UNSC resolution.
In my opinion sc “Responsibility to protect" principle (R2P) could be applied if Gaddafi would use against opposition weapons of mass destruction - such as mustard gas (almost ten tonnes in his possession), bioweapons, " yellow-cake "uranium, Scud-B missiles, or if he with help of foreign mercenaries starts ethnic cleaning of demonstrating tribes. Information from the field is, again, so contradictory that I do not know if my later criteria realized. In addition, if military option will be used so I think that it should be implemented by Arab League or African union forces not by western powers to avoid operation to be colonialist in character.
The
intervention – or better to say bombings – are implemented mainly by
French, British or U.S. Forces. I hoped that the implementation - at
least formally – had be done by the Arab League. Now I can not avoid the
impression that the purpose of operation is only to take possession the
Libyan oilrecerves, seizing The National Oil Corporation (NOC seems to
be the world's top 25 in business rankings), the potential
privatization of NOC and distribution its wealth to new foreign owners.
Still unclear is how much of the company will receive Yankee, French
and British companies, will China be played out out and whether there is
anything left for Italians. If Libya's financial institutions are
dismantled and billions located in Western banks will be confiscated so
Libyans will be permanently blocked out from further development of
their natural resources. Did I forgot the humanitarian side - so what,
who cares?
Active role of France in the war can be well understood not so much of
its the historical dominance in region but more reflecting the coming
French presidential election and the extreamely low support figures of
Sarcozy.
Implementation of no-fly zone began when French fighters destroyed four tanks. Unconfirmed reports claim that the airstrikes and cruise missiles have hit also civilian targets and that missiles have had also depleted uranium in their warheads. If this is true one can only ask whether Western powers have learned anything from the Balkan wars, from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yesterday,
I doubted if I understood the no-fly zone completely wrong after
following the practice of its implementation. Maybe I'm not the only one
done so or what one could imagine the Arab League's views:
The Arab League chief said on Sunday that Arabs did not want military strikes by Western powers that hit civilians when the League called for a no-fly zone over Libya. In comments carried by Egypt's official state news agency, Secretary-General Amr Moussa also said he was calling for an emergency Arab League meeting to discuss the situation in the Arab world and particularly Libya. "What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians," he said. "He requested official reports about what happened in Libya in terms of aerial and marine bombardment that led to the deaths and injuries of many Libyan civilians."
I
think in this situation, the NATO bombing against on ground targets
should immediately be stopped, as neutral as possible information from
the field should be get and the Arab League should take a leading role
in the implementation of UN resolution. In addition, the international
community might consider if there is already is some R2P cause to
intervene to Yemen, Bahrain and maybe to Syria too in coming days.