NOVANEWS

NOVANEWS

By Nureddin Sabir
Editor, Redress Information & Analysis

Nureddin Sabir argues that the reactions of a large section of the so-called “left” and “anti-imperialist” camp to the uprisings in Libya and Syria are motivated not by some high-minded principle or anything to do with progressive ideology but by cynicism, petty personal agendas and ignorance.

• Realpolitik and the state

• Realpolitik and the activist

• Killer questions

• Questionable motives and moral vacuum

• Cynthia McKinney – prisoner of slavery and discrimination

• Franklin Lamb – Lord Haw-Haw of Tripoli

• Stephen Lendman – in the Stalinist tradition

• Alternative media or alternative Fox News?

There is an ugliness about realpolitik, one that smacks of cynicism, selfishness and an absence of all those things that give human beings their humanity: compassion, empathy and solidarity. It is an ugliness that becomes uglier still when the principles of realpolitik are applied by supposedly concerned citizens who see themselves as occupying the moral high ground.

Realpolitik and the state

Coined by Ludwig von Rochau, a 19th century German writer and politician, realpolitikrefers to politics or diplomacy based primarily on power and on practical and material considerations. It is a Machiavellian game, devoid of ethics.

Realpolitik is ordinarily practised by states, and its practitioners would argue that states have a duty to advance the “national interest” without the distraction of ethical considerations.

Thus, during the Cold War the US extended support to authoritarian regimes that had abominable human rights records – in Central and South America, for example – on the pretext that this was in the national interest.

Similarly, Washington’s open-ended support for Israel – a racist, expansionist colonial settler-state and a serial violator of international law, can be attributed in no small part to a large but slowly diminishing pool of American military planners who see it as a strategic asset and therefore worthy of support.

States – and the elites that define their “national interests” – have practised what has become known as realpolitik since ancient times and therefore their pursuit of power without regard to the ethical dimension of their actions is hardly surprising.

Realpolitik and the activist

However, it is perverse if not downright hypocritical when political activists apply the logic and methods of realpolitik while simultaneously claiming a higher moral purpose, namely to uncover the truth and instil a sense of justice in international relations. This is because the principles of realpolitik are intrinsically incompatible with ethical politics. It is a choice of either/or, and where realpolitik and ethics coincide the coincidence tends to be one of chance. So, when “moralists” engage in realpolitikthis besmirches their purported morality and diminishes them to the point where their moral standing is at least no greater than that of their amoral foes.

Yet, this is precisely what some self-styled “leftists” and “anti-imperialists” who seek to influence public opinion, principally through the internet-based “alternative media”, are doing. Their positions towards the Arab Awakening, especially the uprisings in Libya and Syria, are based largely on the cold logic of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” – even if “the enemy of my enemy” is one who is fighting for the very human and civil rights which the “moral” activist claim to advocate.

As we have said previously, there is no doubt that the United States and its NATO allies are cynics and hypocrites who decry crimes against humanity in one place while simultaneously ignoring or supporting them in another. We have every right to be suspicious of the motives that may have driven them to dash for the moral high ground in Libya and Syria, having originally shunned the first flames of the Arab Awakening in Tunisia and Egypt and turned a blind eye to the violent repression of the popular uprising in Bahrain, not to mention their support for the backward and misogynist monarchy in Saudi Arabia.

But that does not mean that we should denounce them when they actually do the right thing – such as protecting the Libyan people from certain massacre or seeking to stop the Syrian regime from slaughtering its people – just because they are doing the right thing for the wrong reasons or not doing it across the board. And it certainly does not mean that we should castigate those who, out of desperation and through lack of choice, accept American and NATO assistance when others have consciously taken the decision to deny them support.

Nor does it mean that the double standards of the US and its allies give the “leftist” and “anti-imperialist” activists who denounce them a licence to ape them by supporting tyrants, fascists and mass murderers.

Killer questions

The killer questions to which some activists of the “left” and the “anti-imperialist” camp have no answer are these: Would it have been morally justifiable to allow Libyan tyrant Muammar Gaddafi to carry out his promise of 17 March 2011 to send his thugs to Benghazi – a city of one million people – within hours and drown its inhabitants in blood, “house by house, room by room and alley by alley”?

And do they believe the right thing to do now is to sit back and watch the Bashar Assad regime murder thousands of Syrians who are demanding their civil and political rights?

If the answers to these questions are yes, then on what moral grounds are these answers based? If they are not based on moral considerations, then what are they based on?

Alas, the answer can be found in the same logic that lies behind US backing for Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and other unsavoury regimes, and that underpinned Washington’s support for Chile’s Augusto Pinochet and other military juntas in the Americas, as well as for the Mubarak and Ben Ali regimes in Egypt and Tunisia. And it is the very same logic that had led George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Nicolas Sarkozy, Vladimir Putin, Dmitriy Medvedev, Hu Jintao and many others to befriend and support the Gaddafi regime right up to the eve of the 17 February Revolution. It is the logic of cynicism, of supporting the unsavoury simply because your enemies have, for equally cynical reasons, adopted a position against him.

Questionable motives and moral vacuum

States that apply the logic of realpolitikoften try to sweeten their ugly motives with the language of ethics. So do those on the “left” and the “anti-imperialist” camp who have decided to make enemies of the people’s revolutions in Syria and Libya.

But there are two significant differences between states and the armchair activists. First, whereas statesmen can claim, often dishonestly, that a higher purpose – the “national interest” – justifies their unethical foreign policies, the activists are responsible for nobody and answerable only to their consciences. They cannot invoke the security and wellbeing of the people to justify their unethical behaviour, and this makes them at least as depraved morally as their state adversaries.

Secondly, the realpolitik of the activists is transparently shoddy, ridden with contradictions, ill-informed, confused and half-baked. It is often based on false or distorted information and sometimes even lies.

This begs the question “why?” Why do people who claim that their only aims are to uncover the truth and bring about a more just world end up doing the exact opposite?

The answers can be gleaned from the positions adopted by some of the “leading lights” of the “left” and the “anti-imperialist” camp regarding the Syrian and Libyan uprisings. Put together, it adds up to a grotesque picture of cynicism, double standards, ignorance, naivety and stupidity, as well as lack of empathy, compassion and solidarity in respect of those struggling for justice and human and civil rights. What is worse is that, far from their proclaimed high moral goals, these activists seem to be motivated by nothing more virtuous than pseudo-ideological reasons and petty personal agendas.

We will consider just three of these “leading lights”: former US congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, US academic Franklin Lamb and self-styled “progressive” blogger Stephen Lendman. There are many others like them lower down the food chain but in our opinion these three are a representative sample of the large breed of cliche-obsessed, slogan-mongers who are contaminating the alternative media with cheap propaganda, ill-conceived ideas and outright fabrications.

Cynthia McKinney – prisoner of slavery and discrimination

The saddest and most disappointing of the three is former US congresswoman Cynthia McKinney who embodies the confusion, contradictions, ignorance and hypocrisy displayed by the “left” and “anti-imperialist” camp towards Libya and Syria.

Until she inexplicably fell in love with the Gaddafi regime, McKinney’s credentials as a human rights activist and advocate for worthy causes had been unblemished.

The daughter of a veteran civil rights campaigner, in 2001 McKinney introduced a bill to Congress calling for “the suspension of the use, sale, development, production, testing and export of depleted uranium munitions”, which were depleting the lives of thousands of Iraqi civilians living in areas contaminated by US and allied use of such munitions during the two Gulf wars. Ironically, given her later support for the Gaddafi regime, while in Congress she also worked on legislation to stop conventional weapons transfers to governments that are undemocratic or fail to respect human rights.

McKinney’s support for the Palestinian cause also went beyond words. In December 2008 she was aboard the humanitarian aid ship Dignity, which attempted to break the medieval Israeli siege of the Gaza Strip but was rammed and fired upon by Israeli gunboats, forcing it to dock in Lebanon. Six months later, in June 2009, she was a passenger on another humanitarian aid ship, Spirit of Humanity, which was stopped and seized in international waters by seaborne Israeli state terrorists.

However, for reasons known only to herself, from then onwards McKinney embarked on a journey that was to wipe out all her admirable deeds and place her firmly on the side of the very evil that she had hitherto campaigned against. In an interview in May 2011 to a television station run by the Israeli Mossad-linked Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), she met a key requirement of all who sell their souls to Gaddafi: she declared her admiration for the Libyan ruler’s handbook, the so-called Green Book, from which she said the US had a lot to learn.

The following month, instead of speaking out in defence of the hapless civilians that were being slaughtered daily by Gaddafi’s thugs through indiscriminate rocket and sniper fire, McKinney visited Libya and defended the Libyan tyrant, whom she claimed NATO was trying to assassinate. The stalwart defender of the oppressed had suddenly become spokeswoman for the oppressor, turning her anger on the international media for focusing too much on the civilian casualties of Gaddafi’s crimes.

The demise of Gaddafi and the liberation of Libya in October 2011 should have spelled the end of the love affair between the former human rights campaigner and the mass murderer. But no. McKinney changed tack and resorted instead to disseminating falsehoods.

Thus, in an article published on 13 January in Information Clearing House and other “alternative media”, McKinney claimed that President Obama had dispatched 12,000 US troops to Malta, ready to “make their descent into Libya”; that all Libyan petroleum platforms “are occupied by NATO and that warships occupy Libya’s ports”; that “photographs show Italian encampments in the desert with an announcement that the French are to follow”; and that there is a “vibrant, well-financed, [pro-Gaddafi] grassroots-supported resistance”.

The fact that these were lies and that it was only a matter of days until they were shown to be lies did not seem to bother McKinney, who continues to speak for the defunct Gaddafi.

Why? Why would a woman who until recently had been in the forefront of defending human rights resort to lying in defence of a murderous, fascist regime?

We can only speculate, but a clue to one line of speculation may be found in the reference in her 13 January article to the “antebellum South”, the “days of slavery” and “the confederacy”. The USA’s history of slavery and discrimination against African Americans obviously looms large in McKinney’s psyche. McKinney, it would seem, is a woman with a huge grudge against the American white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant elite whose forefathers discriminated against her family and her kith and kin. It is a grudge that has at times prompted her to behave irrationally, without thinking about the consequences of her actions. One of those occasions happened in March 2006 when she struck a Capitol Hill police officer for asking her to identify herself as she was bypassing a security checkpoint without wearing her congressional identification pin.

If this analysis is correct, then McKinney’s previous activities in support of human and civil rights have to be seen in a different light. Rather than done out of care and compassion for the victims of oppression, occupation and discrimination, they were in fact motivated by hatred for the ultimate power behind the victims’ oppressors, but for completely extraneous reasons.

In other words, in both Iraq and Palestine McKinney’s was motivated not by a desire to see justice for the Iraqis and Palestinians, but by her unrelated grudge against the elites running the US – the then occupying power in Iraq and the ultimate power behind Israel. By the same token, McKinney’s support for the criminal Gaddafi regime stemmed not so much from genuine belief and admiration for it, but from the fact that the Libyan tyrant had fallen out with his old friends and McKinney’s enemy, the hideously white political class in the United States (and its black flunkies). Thus, in all of her activities in the Arab world McKinney was guided not by anything noble or honourable but by the cynics’ principle of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Franklin Lamb – Lord Haw-Haw of Tripoli

A former lecturer in international law at Northwestern College of Law in Oregon, USA, Franklin Lamb shares some of the contradictions and much of the hypocrisy of Cynthia McKinney. As with McKinney, some of his activities, such as his support for Palestinian rights in Lebanon, deserve praise. However, a large, black cloud hangs over his head.

Lamb touts himself as a Middle East expert and commentator, and he has been a frequent guest on Iran’s English-language Press TV, Iranian-backed Lebanese Hezbollah’s Al-Manar TV and Russia’s English-language television channel RT. His articles have been published in a range of “alternative media” outlets, including Counterpunch, Foreign Policy Journal (not to be confused with the respected Foreign Policy Magazine), Voltaire Network International, Intifada Palestine and Uprooted Palestinians.

Lamb appears to suffer from chronic political and moral schizophrenia: on the one hand is the advocate of justice for the Palestinians and Lebanese, and on the other is the cold, cynical lobbyist for dictators. Indeed, beneath the veneer of academia and the language of rights, independence and anti-imperialism is an unsophisticated, delusional propagandist whose regard for the truth is at best partial and selective.

Joseph Goebbels, Adolph Hitler’s propaganda chief, said that if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. That is precisely what Lamb appears to have been hoping for, first in respect of the Gaddafi regime in Libya and now in relation to Syria’s ruling sectarian clique.

Ever since the Arab Awakening began to engulf the Gaddafi tyranny in February 2011, Lamb adopted a position of unyielding support for the Libyan tyrant which he has now extended to the Alawite regime in Syria. Out went any pretence of belief in the universality and indivisibility of human rights, and in came the crude propaganda and fabrications in the service of the Arab world’s worst two killer-regimes.

The central, unspoken premise underlying Lamb’s thesis on Libya and Syria is that the Arab people are too stupid to demand their rights and, therefore, the spontaneous, grassroots uprisings in Libya and Syria must have been planned and organized by superior powers, namely the United States and its Western allies.

To prove his thesis, Lamb took up residence in Tripoli while the people of Libya slowly and painfully fought their way towards their capital, and he busied himself spouting out, almost on a daily basis, articles based on the utterances of Gaddafi’s spokesman, Musa Ibrahim Gaddafi, and his own shoddy “observations” and unfounded speculation. In contrast to all foreign journalists who were holed up in the Rixos Hotel and could go out only on regime-sponsored trips and in the company of secret police minders, Lamb was allowed unrestricted movement in Tripoli and beyond.

Very much in the tradition of Lord Haw-Haw, whose propaganda was broadcast to audiences in Britain and the US by Nazi German radio during World War II, Lamb used the “alternative media”, as well as Russia’s RT television channel, Iran’s Press TV and Hezbollah’s Al-Manar TV, to disseminate his rants with the express purpose of misinforming and confusing Western publics about the nature of the Libyan people’s revolution and, therefore, weakening their support for UN-authorized action to prevent Gaddafi’s thugs from murdering Libyans. His lies ranged from gross exaggerations of the numbers of civilian casualties resulting from NATO air strikes against Gaddafi’s thugs – taken straight from the lips of his Libyan colleague, Musa Ibrahim Gaddafi – to nonsensical (and since proven to be nonsensical) prattle about non-existent NATO plans to invade Libya and the imaginary imminent collapse of the people’s revolution.

Lamb’s sojourn in Tripoli came to an abrupt end in August when he was shot and wounded, ironically by one of Gaddafi’s snipers! However, he persisted in contaminating cyberspace and the airwaves with his odorous flatulence. In denial that his master, Muammar Gaddafi, is no more, Lamb continues to this day to share his imaginative wishful thinking that Gaddafi’s thugs will mount a counter-revolution to install in power the defunct tyrant’s odious offspring – Saadi, who has bribed his way to Niger, and Muhammad and Aysha, who are guests of the Algerian military junta.

Nowadays Lamb has another preoccupation: using the propaganda template he developed in Libya but this time in defence of the murderous and sectarian regime of Bashar Assad.

Contrary to eyewitness accounts and video footage of the carnage unleashed by Assad on innocent civilians up and down Syria, in Lamb’s parallel universe all is hunky-dory in Damascus, Homs, Hama, Daraa and elsewhere where the whole world knows dozens of innocent civilians are being mowed down by Assad’s “security” forces and shabiha thugs every day.

However, Lamb has shown less gusto in defence of the Assad family than he has in the case of the Gaddafi mafia. Perhaps his recent appointment as consigliere for the Gaddafi family has left him with little time to justify the mass murder in Syria.

Franklin Lamb and his obsession with defending mass murderers may, on the face of it, seem perplexing. As one Lebanon-based blogger said: “Franklin Lamb is like a jack-in-the-box. Where did he so suddenly come from? His case is the same as with all these obscure radical groups that appear out of the blue; ‘who’s his paymaster?’ He could be one of those – what we call here – Hezbollah groupies.”

Indeed, all the evidence indicates that Lamb is close to Hezbollah and its ally, Iran; hence Hezbollah’s Al-Manar TV and its website and Iran’s Press TV being in the forefront of the channels airing his black propaganda on the Libyan and Syrian revolutions.

It would be fair to assume that, as with Cynthia McKinney, Lamb’s support for mass murderers is not based on some principle or obscure belief in them but has more cynical reasons. We have no publishable evidence to shed light on Lamb’s relationship with Hezbollah or other groups in Lebanon, but he is known to be an uncritical advocate of the Shi’i group, about which he has written a book.

But if Lamb is acting as a parrot for Hezbollah for whatever reason, why would Hezbollah adopt a position of hostility to the people’s revolutions in Libya and Syria?

As far as Hezbollah’s attitude to Syria is concerned, the answer is quite simple. Hezbollah’s dominance in Lebanon, and its ability to hold its ground vis-a-vis Israel, is heavily dependent on Iranian arms supplies delivered via Syria, as well as Syrian backing rendered to the group as a means of maintaining the Assad regime’s influence within Lebanon. In return for this, Hezbollah has taken the shortsighted decision to support the Assad regime against the Syrian people, even though it is only a matter of time until the regime falls. It is a strategy that is similar to gambling all your money on a horse that you know for certain will lose.

Hezbollah’s policy towards the Gaddafi regime and the Libyan revolution is less straightforward but no less cynical. Neither Hezbollah nor its backer, Iran, are champions of the defunct Libyan tyrant, not least because he kidnapped and murdered the Iranian-Lebanese cleric Musa Sadr while he was on a visit to Libya in 1978. However, when the US reluctantly and belatedly decided to back moves at the UN Security Council to protect the Libyan people, Hezbollah and Tehran decided to make the most out of this in terms of propaganda. The reason was not that they liked the Gaddafi regime or distrusted the people’s revolution. It was much more cynical. They were acting according to the principle of my enemy’s enemy is my friend. Franklin Lamb – mercenary, opportunist, ignoramus, simpleton or nincompoop, it is hard to tell – simply fell in line.

Stephen Lendman – in the Stalinist tradition

The third and the most straightforward of our “leading lights” of the “left” and “anti-imperialist” camp is Chicago-based blogger Stephen Lendman,

In contrast to Cynthia McKinney and Franklin Lamb, Lendman has no experience in domestic or international politics. By his own account, he has spent almost his entire adult life, from the age of 33 until he retired at the age of 65, working for a small family business.

Lendman’s political education is based entirely on what he reads on the internet and elsewhere. As far as we can gather, he has never visited the Arab world and he began to write about political matters only in 2005 at the age of 71.

Although now aged 78 and considerably older than the usual internet activist, Lendman is more typical of the “leftist” and “anti-imperialist” online activists than either McKinney or Lamb – the former having been a professional politician and the latter sullied by questionable affiliations and dealings with political parties and unsavoury regimes. But while Lendman is arguably more “innocent” than either of these two, his attitude towards the uprisings in Libya and especially Syria is just as cynical.

Lendman is a self-proclaimed advocate of “progressive” and “anti-imperialist” causes. That is all very well, except that he seems to suffer from the same glaring problem which, according to Jeffrey Blankfort, ”has characterized a significant segment of the US and Western left going back to the days of Stalin, and that is its tendency to see everything in black and white terms”. In the words of Blankfort,

For this segment … the only criterion necessary to judge a dictatorship or a dictatorial central committee is where it stands in respect to US and Western imperialism.

If it is opposed by the US and its allies, it must be defended, regardless of the fact that it might be a police state which denies to its peoples the right to dissent politically from official government policies and practices and to organize opposition to that government – that is, free speech, freedom of the press and freedom of association.

But it is not just this black and white syndrome that seems to shape Lendman’s view of the uprisings in Syria and Libya. As Uri Avnery observed in relation to some former Communists of the Stalinist tradition, in our view Lendman also suffers from “a kind of inherited attachment to Russia, almost automatically supporting its international positions, from Afghanistan to … Syria”.

Indeed, a trawl through Lendman’s published works reveals considerable overlap of ideas and perspectives between his views and Russia’s official position towards the Arab Awakening in general and the Syrian and Libyan uprisings in particular. This is one reason for the fact that in the year since February 2011 Lendman featured at least 34 timeson Russia’s RT television channel.

It is a mutually-reinforcing relationship. For Lendman, a mere blogger among thousands of bloggers, being plucked out of nowhere by an international broadcaster is not only flattering, but also encourages him to take his cue from the Russian media and write more of the stuff that RT likes to air. And the more he does so, the more RT chooses to invite him to speak on its programmes. In this respect, neither side has failed the other.

So, at least as far as the uprisings in Syria and Libya are concerned, Lendman the self-styled “progressive” is moved not by concern for the wellbeing of the peoples of those countries but by the cynical logic of my enemy’s enemy is my friend and by the ego boost he receives from being a talking head on Russia’s RT channel, a station whose motto is “we take any story and turn it into a completely different one”.

On the morning of 4 February, Lendman published a blog post entitled “Security Council showdown on Syria” whose opening paragraph read: “Slowly things are coming to a head. America, Israel, rogue NATO partners and regional despot allies are itching for a fight with Syria. Russia and China stand firmly opposed.”

On the same morning, Reuters news agency reported that Syrian forces had killed more than 200 people in an overnight assault on the city of Homs. It quoted residents of Homs as saying that “at least 36 houses were completely destroyed with families inside”. Meanwhile, a video posted on YouTube conveyed in graphic details the mayhem unleashed by Assad’s killers on the innocent civilians of Homs.

Lendman and many like him would like us to believe that this is all a figment of our imagination, an illusion manufactured by “America, Israel, rogue NATO partners and regional despot allies”. We know it is not. We know that the people of Syria, like the peoples of Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen and Bahrain, have risen up to break the shackles of fascism and dictatorship and that they will not stop until they are free. We suspect that Lendman also knows this. However, since his own country, the imperialist USA, cynically claims to support the Syrian people, he has taken the opposite position: to support Assad’s fascist, sectarian regime. Thus, the logic of the enemy of my enemy prevails over all else – over compassion, empathy and solidarity – the more so if it also yields a few television appearances.

Alternative media or alternative Fox News?

The proliferation of cynicism masquerading as humanism camouflaged in the language of the left and anti-imperialism would not have been possible without the collaboration of the internet-based “alternative media”.

Indeed, it is with sadness, dismay and considerable revulsion that we observe websites that have traditionally stood for justice and the truth helping cynics, ego trippers and ignoramuses peddle false information and questionable arguments about Libya, Syria and the Arab Awakening in general.

For many years, activists and campaigners for justice unhappy with the mainstream media’s flawed and lopsided reporting, especially where Israel or big business are involved, have looked to the alternative media as potential means of redressing the balance of news and information available to the voting publics.

Far from it. At least as far as Syria and Libya are concerned, some of the holy cows of the alternative media, websites such as Counterpunch, Countercurrents, Information Clearing House, AlterNet, Antiwar, Axis of Logic and Common Dreams have opted instead to take the side of the oppressors and against the Arab people – people who are seeking nothing more than the civil and political rights that are taken so much for granted in the West. Instead of providing reliable coverage of news that does not get reported or is under-reported in the mainstream media, these alternative media have turned into alternative, amateur versions of Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News.

This is not only painful but also hard to fathom. One likely explanation is ignorance: those in the alternative media who support Assad and Gaddafi understand little about Syria or Libya or indeed much else and, therefore, are blind to the contradiction of supporting fascist dictators on the one hand while claiming to stand for the downtrodden and the oppressed on the other.

Truth has been sacrificed on the alter of ignorance, hate, hypocrisy and hyperbole.

It is time to start anew.

NOVANEWS

After the capture, torture and murder of Libya’s national leader on 20 October, imperialist joy was unbounded in Washington, London and Paris. It seemed the green revolution had been cut off at the head, and now it only remained for the western-backed ‘opposition’ to form a puppet government ready to deliver sovereign Libya and her oil wealth safely into the clutches of imperialism.

Just three days after Colonel Gaddafi was slaughtered, Libya was solemnly pronounced to be ‘liberated’, and all the talk was of minting a brand new constitution and government.

By early November, however, the assorted counter-revolutionary militia had already broken their pledge to give up their weapons and submit to the authority of the National Transitional Council (NTC), instead continuing to fight each other over the elusive spoils of victory. The heavily armed Misrata Brigades, in between engaging in fire fights with their terrorist rivals from Benghazi, have not even refrained from attacking each other in Misrata itself, with brigades setting up rival checkpoints in the city.

Meanwhile, in amongst this chaos of civil war unleashed by imperialism, there starts to emerge also evidence that Libya’s green forces are gathering strength after the setback of losing their leading figure.

And whilst the mainstream media are happy to use the fog of war to muddle up sectarian clashes with acts of resistance, it is clear even from their reports that resistance to NTC attempts to rule is growing. Nor is it always so obvious where militia loyalties lie.

When Gaddafi’s son Saif al-Islam was captured by the Zintan militia, the ecstatic NTC promised he would be delivered to the International Criminal Court. Instead he appears, according to some reports, to have remained under the protection of the Zintan militia, which according to Dr Yusuf Shakir, a veteran Libyan TV broadcaster, may itself be warming to the green cause.

Some sense of the developing pattern of events can be gleaned from the Libya Liberation Front News (LLFN) website, though the information coming through is necessarily patchy and hard to corroborate in detail. This source tells how people chased out of Tawergha (formerly home to 10,000 mainly black Libyans, now a ghost town) in racist pogroms are now crammed into unsanitary concentration camps in the depths of winter, with their children dying of exposure to frost.

Other displaced people inside Tripoli have been attacked and robbed by the Misrata militia. This nation, which a year ago could boast the highest Human Development Index in all Africa, is now reduced to near-barbarism.

Yet the LLFN website testifies how even in the midst of all this chaos, resistance is growing in influence and organisational strength. For example we are told that the “green army has sent teams of engineering battalion to start immediate repairs on the Man-Made River in areas that have been captured by the green army”.

At present, the western stooges use water shortages as a way of controlling the population, cutting off the supply to those who disagree with the NTC’s rebellion or who cannot afford to pay the hefty new bills. By their actions, the green resistance forces are striving to restore fresh water and electricity to city residents.

LLFN reports too that anti-green rebels in the southern city of Sabha have lost control to green forces, calling on the quisling NTC for reinforcements, and armed clashes between rebels and green fighters in Sirte are reported to have left a score of rebels dead. In and around Tripoli itself, it is claimed that recent ground operations by green forces have resulted in the loss of many NTC soldiers, whilst a green attack using two helicopter gunships cost the lives of a number of French and Italian mercenary agents near Bregah.

A resistance attack is also reported upon El Jadida prison involving an intense fire fight and the loss of a number of NTC security goons. A new year report announced that Sabha, Bani Walid, Tarhouna and Zilten are still flying the green flag of the resistance, and people there publicly celebrated the reopening of the Al Jamahriya TV channel, (now beaming in from Egypt to the chagrin of the NTC).

As we go to press, we are much heartened by the following report, which appeared in the Daily Mail of 24 January:

“Libya appeared to be sliding backwards into civil war yesterday when supporters of Colonel Gaddafi’s regime clashed with government forces and seized control of a town.

“At least four were killed in the violence. The fighting came just 24 hours after the head of the interim government said Libya risked becoming a ‘bottomless pit’.

“A resident of Bani Walid, about 120 miles south-east of Tripoli, said both sides fought using heavy weaponry and that 20 had been wounded …

“Another witness said the fighting had stopped but that supporters of the country’s previous regime were in control.

“The violence was sparked when some Gaddafi loyalists were arrested. Other supporters of the former leader, who was captured and killed in October, attacked the local militia’s headquarters in response …

“The uprising could not come at a worse time for the ruling National Transitional Council. It is already reeling from violent protests in the eastern city of Benghazi.” (‘Four dead as Gaddafi loyalists seize town amid fears country is descending into “bottomless pit”’ by Julian Gavaghan)

The impotent NTC has meanwhile announced its fantasy plans for a new electoral system. In place of the mass-participation model of neighbourhood democracy that previously obtained, the quislings propose to ban from standing, not only former government leaders (and this despite the fact that many NTC leaders were themselves senior members of the former Libyan government), but even anyone who secured a university degree relating to academic research on the Green Book. Clearly the only democratic right now in Libya is that being fought for by the green resistance.

Victory to Libya’s green army!

NOVANEWS

by Asif Haroon Raja

It will be recalled that in order to multiply pressure on Pakistan, western border was deliberately heated up by strategic partners sitting in Kabul.

Between May and September 2011, tens of deadly raids had been conducted by Waliur Rehman and Maulvi Faqir led militants based in safe haven of Kunar and Fazlullah led militants based in Nuristan duly backed by Afghan National Directorate of Security (NDS), RAAM, Afghan regime and NATO.

Levies employed on border duties and villagers were cruelly killed by militants. Kabul and ISAF HQ were repeatedly requested to control cross border terrorism and to close down sanctuaries of anti-Pakistan militants in Kunar and Nuristan, but no heed was paid.

Perforce, GHQ deployed regular troops in Mehmand and Chitral and cleared the restive areas of the presence of undesirables. 7 AK Regiment was deployed in Mohmand Agency closer to Afghan border. It established several border posts to oversee possible infiltration routes.

Two posts, Volcano and Boulder, were set up ahead of Salala village in Mehmand Agency on a barren ridgeline about 8000 feet in height in a manner that that they leaned forward on the forward slope so as to effectively cover the valley running from east to west effectively.

The two posts, each comprising about platoon strength 34 soldiers were so deployed to cover northwestern and northeastern approaches. The weapons were sited in a manner to be able bring down enfilade and grazing fire in the valley.

One post covered the exit point of the valley in the west; the second post covered the eastern edge at the entry point. Company HQ with a platoon were in depth.

The posts located on a dominating feature enjoyed excellent line of sight and arc of fire. The two posts also acted as the screen of the battalion.

The valley was frequented by TTP militants together with ANA trained Afghan militants based in Kunar.

This route was the shortest and safest from Kunar and led straight to heart of Mehmand Agency wherefrom the infiltrators had multiple choices to either strike within that tribal agency, or Bajaur, or Upper or Lower Dir.

Deeper targets of Malakand, Buner, Swat or even Chitral and parts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa could also be approached via Mohmand. Northwestern edge of the ridges running from north to south and overlooking the said valley was under the control of pro-government tribal lashkar, which had assisted the security forces in chasing out terrorists.

As a consequence to deployment of these posts backed by troops in depth, several attempts by militants to sneak through the valley were successfully blocked by the two posts. As a result, cross border movement had ceased from mid October onwards.

Blockage of the main passageway resulted in assembly of large numbers of militants belonging to TTP in Kunar who were getting desperate to enter Pakistan and recapture the lost ground. They were also keen to settle scores with pro-government lashkars, who in their view had betrayed the cause of the tribesmen.

Karzai regime, NDS and Afghan National Army (ANA) were also boiling with anger after attacks on NDS HQ and murder of Rabbani in Kabul and wanted to settle scores. Their reprisal actions by militants based in Kunar had ceased as a result of military posts at Salala.

In order to seek assistance from NATO, NDS and RAW informed CIA that Pakistan sponsored militants were using Mehmand-Salala-Kunar route to create unrest in Kunar and other regions of Eastern Afghanistan.

It was also conveyed that the two Pakistani posts at Salala were not only providing cover to the infiltrators but also preventing the movement of their fighters into Mehmand.

Based on this input, a comprehensive plan was hatched in Kabul to provide covering fire to the batch of over 100 militants and ensure their safe entry.

It was also planned to destroy the two posts so as to remove the irritants for good so that future cross border movement could be resumed unhindered. As a cover plan, a mock operation by ANA was conducted in Kunar province closer to the border from 25 November onwards. NATO air cover was made part of the operation.

The area was well away from Salala area and deep inside Afghan territory and Pakistan Army was conveyed about it in advance. Six figure grid coordinates were once again conveyed to relevant authorities in Kabul through Army’s liaison officers in NATO HQ and in Border Coordination Centre (BCC). 7AK Regiment was also informed which could hear the noise of flying choppers on that fateful night.

Just before dawn on 25/26th, when all the soldiers were fast asleep except for the sentries on duty, two Apache helicopters suddenly crossed the border and started firing at the two posts indiscriminately. The helicopters remained at a safe distance for fear of being hit by an ack ack gun or a surface-to-air missile.

The helicopters were backed by four other combat helicopters and close air support was provided by F-18s. No sooner fire came on the posts, a field officer commanding the two posts instantly contacted the ISAF and informed that Pakistani posts were being attacked and fire must cease. But firing continued for one hour.

During this period, bulk of infiltrating force along with donkeys laden with ammunition and explosives moved passed the valley. By that time, urgent messages had been sent by GHQ on hotline and the helicopters turned back. When the helicopters went away and dust settled down, the defenders detected movement in the valley.

The stragglers had still not gone past the valley and as such were brought under coordinated fire. On receipt of distress signal from the militants, the helicopters returned. By then it had been established that the posts were not equipped with AA guns. As such the helicopters came closer and plastered the two posts with ATGMs with a vengeance for next thirty minutes.

Trigger happy NATO soldiers didn’t remove their fingers of the triggers to make sure that all the occupants of two posts died. 17 soldiers including one Major and one subaltern died and 16 soldiers received serious injuries. Seven soldiers from Company HQ who were on their way to evacuate the dead and injured were also targeted and killed taking the total to 24.

Taking a deeper look into the gory episode one finds that the timings were carefully selected on the premise that even the two sentries on duty would have dozed off.

In order to obfuscate facts the NATO has taken a plea as an afterthought that helicopters responded to the hostile fire coming from the posts.

There was no reason for the defenders to open fire at the helicopters without any provocation.

If one agrees to the NATO’s preposterous contention for argument sake, the fast moving and highly maneuverable helicopters with anti-armor and anti-aircraft protection could have easily moved away out of the range of the weapons deployed on ground.

Moreover, if the fire did come, it meant the entire lot was alert and in battle positions. If so, how come so many got killed and injured without incurring any damage to the attacking helicopters?

If it was unintentional, as claimed by NATO leadership, why couldn’t the helicopters equipped with night fighting capability see Pakistani flag fluttering on top of a post and soldiers dressed in uniform, particularly when each flying helicopter/jet/cargo plane carry marked map showing the border and border posts?

If the helicopters came in response to the call made by ANA, how come the attackers attacked the static posts atop a ridge line?

In these ten years the NATO should have learnt that Taliban never take up static defences and that too on hilltops. They prefer caves and valleys. If the helicopters made a mistake once, why was the mistake repeated?

If the map reference of Salala posts was marked wrongly by BCC or passed wrongly by NATO liaison officer, why the massacre continued for ninety minutes when NATO HQ was frenetically informed on hotline at multiple levels including GHQ to get the fire stopped forthwith?

Had the purpose been to demolish the two posts, it could have been done within few minutes using ATGMs and that too from 3 km distance and not for ninety minutes.

Since the real purpose was to give covering fire to the infiltrators, heads of the troops manning the posts were pinned down to facilitate unobserved and unhindered movement of infiltrators carrying their extra baggage on donkeys.

It will be sheer under estimation of NATO power to take nearly two hours to destroy posts made of cement blocks and strengthened by sand bags.

It was a willful massacre and it didn’t end on 26 November. The terrorists that manged to sneak in on that night are now busy carrying out terrorist attacks in Kyhber Pakhtunkwa, Khyber Agency and other nearby areas.

The inquest carried out by ISAF’s Brig Stephen Clark apportions equal blame on both sides and wrongfully maintains that the fire was in self-defence and in retaliation to the provocative fire by the posts.

The US accepts several omissions made by attackers but terms all of them coincidental and affixes partial responsibility on Pakistan.

It is inconceivable that the ISAF with best technology was unaware of the existence of two posts.

The US officials consistently stated that the attack was unintentional before and during the course of inquiry thereby influencing the investigating team.

The US wants Pakistan Army to accept this factually incorrect report based on half-truths and forget about the incident and get back to normal business.

It says so because its previous incursions on four occasions were taken lightly by Pakistan. It wants the extra judicial murder of 24 soldiers to be also ignored but refuses to accepts its fault and to render apology since it hurts its ego.

Mercifully, the Army and the government are on one page. Not only the report has been rejected, the government has taken bold and appropriate steps to checkmate America’s bellicosity and aggressive unilateralism.

New terms of engagement have been chalked out by Parliamentary Committee and hopefully Pak-US relations would become more even handed and based on equality, trust and mutual respect.

NOVANEWS

by Stephen Lendman

A joint report was released by the Arab Organization for Human Rights (AOHR), Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR), and International Legal Assistance Consortium (ILAC).

Their mission investigated alleged widespread international law violations since mid-February 2011. Its mandate included investigating those committed by:

• the former government;

• NATO; and

• insurgents.

It also sought to identify human rights issues, requiring Lybian and international attention.

Investigators included “leading international jurists and lawyers with expertise in international human rights law, international humanitarian law, international criminal law, transitional justice, and the development of legal systems in post-conflict environments.”

Information obtained from witnesses, victims, and other parties were kept confidential unless already revealed and available.

Investigations weren’t meant to be comprehensive. Rather, the mission tried “to convey the considered observations of its members, in order to facilitate, and prompt, the work of other bodies and authorities.”

Investigators included:

1. Raji Sourani: PCHR Director, Arab Organization for Human Rights President (AOHR), International Federation for Human Rights Vice President, Executive Committee of the International Committee of Jurists member, as well as other credentials.

2. Amin Mekki Medani: Sudanese lawyer and former AOHR President. He also held various UN posts.

3. Mohsen Awad: former AOHR Secretary-General and Egyptian Human Rights Council member.

4. Amina Bouayach: Moroccan Organization for Human Rights President and International Federation for Human Rights Vice President.

5. Agneta Johansson: International Legal Assistance Consortium (ILAC) Deputy Director.

6. William Meyer: ILAC Chairman and former CEELI Prague Institute Executive Director.

7. Daragh Murray: Republic of Ireland IRCHSS Scholar and head of PCHR’s International Unit.

8. Hany Abu Nahla: head of PCHR’s Translation Unit.

From November 15 – 22, investigations and interviews were conducted in Western Libya alone, in and around Tripoli, Zawiya, Sibrata, Khoms, Zliten, Misrata, Tawergha, and Sirte. Significantly, Benghazi was omitted, an area plagued by insurgent crimes.

Findings revealed “significant” international law violations. However, imposed constraints prevented investigators from reaching “definitive legal conclusions regarding individual incidents.” Nonetheless, they believe crimes of war and against humanity were committed.

Evidence suggests NATO classified civilian sites as military ones for attacks, including homes, schools, colleges, food distribution centers, hospitals, mosques, and others. In addition, civilians were targeted, notably in Sirte.

In fact, one incident there killed 47 or more non-combatants. This and other incidents raise “significant questions,” requiring further inquiry and disclosure.

Insurgents also violated international law, including civilian killings; torture and other abuses; wrongful detentions; mistreatment of foreign workers, and forced “displacement of suspected enemies of the Revolution.”

Observations about Gaddafi’s Governance

Unfortunately, investigators used dubious sources, calling his authority “one man rule.” They include the International Criminal Court (ICC) and International Crisis Group (ICG). Neither functions independently.

The ICC notoriously serves Western interests. As a result, it absolves or ignores their crimes while targeting their enemies like Gaddafi.

Former World Bank vice president Mark Malloch Brown and former US diplomat Morton Abramowitz co-founded the ICG. Now headed by former US diplomat Thomas Pickering and former International Criminal Tribunals chief prosecutor for Yugoslavia and Rwanda Louise Arbour, it functions the same way.

Its Executive Committee and advisors include former US and Western officials, former NATO commander Wesley Clark, and corporate figures like George Soros. They, in turn, reframed responsibility to protect authority in Libya to lawlessly intervene belligerently to establish neo-colonial rule. In fact, UN Charter provisions explicitly prohibit military force for humanitarian interventions.

Investigators also mischaracterized Jamahiriya governance, calling it “an elaborate facade” to hide Gaddafi’s sole authority. Quoting the ICG, they described it as “a highly complex formal ruling system containing a plethora of congresses and committees, often with overlapping powers, that have contributed to a sense of orchestrated and perpetual chaos.”

In addition by calling himself “Brother Leader,” Gaddafi “avoid(ed) accountability.”

They quoted the ICC saying “the Libyan State apparatus of power – including political, administrative, military and security branches – consists of a complex set of units and individuals, all of which are ultimately subject to the orders and control of” Gaddafi.

They ignored Washington’s longstanding regime change policy. As a result, an externally generated insurgency followed. In addition, the National Transitional Council (NTC) was illegitimately established with interim puppet authority for Western interests. Libyans are entirely shut out.

Nonetheless, investigators called it “internationally recognized as the Government of Libya….to oversee the transition to representative democracy.”

In fact, Washington, NATO partners, and complicit regional states don’t tolerate democracy or international law. Ignoring that denies reality.

Moreover, investigators claim “pre-revolutionary Libya (was) characterized by a climate of fear, in which individuals were afraid to speak their mind, where opposition – real or perceived – was ruthlessly crushed, and where security forces committed apparently widespread and systematic abuses with total impunity.”

Sadly, the facts belie this description. Most Libyans supported Gaddafi and still do. During NATO’s intervention, overwhelming numbers rallied openly. On July 1, 2011, 95% of Tripoli’s population (over a million strong) expressed support in Green Square.

Fear restrains them now. Doing so risks imprisonment, torture, and/or death by summary execution.

Libya’s social state was also ignored, including under Gaddafi’s 1999 Decision No. 111. It assured all Libyans free healthcare, education, electricity, water, training, rehabilitation, housing assistance, disability and old-age benefits, interest-free state loans, as well as generous subsidies to study abroad, buy a new car, help couples when they marry, practically free gasoline, and more.

Literacy under Gaddafi rose from 20 – 80%. Libya’s hospitals and private clinics were some of the region’s best. Now they’re in shambles.

Before war began, Libyans had Africa’s highest standard of living. Gaddafi’s Green Book said:

“The house is a basic need of both the individual and the family, therefore it should not be owned by others.” It also covered other social policies, saying:

• “Women, like men, are human beings.

• ….(A)ll individuals have a natural right to self-expression by any means….;

• In a socialist society no person may own a private means of transportation for the purpose of renting to others, because this represents controlling the needs of others.

• The democratic system is a cohesive structure whose foundation stones are firmly laid above the other (through People’s Conferences and Committees). There is absolutely no conception of democratic society other than this.

• No representation of the people – representation is a falsehood. The existence of parliaments underlies the absence of the people, for democracy can only exist with the presence of the people and not in the presence of representatives of the people.”

Green Book ideology rejects Western-style democracy and predatory capitalism, especially neoliberal exploitation. It’s one of many reasons why Gaddafi was ousted.

His impressive social benefits also included free land, equipment, livestock and seeds for agriculture to foster self-sufficient food production. In addition, all basic food items were subsidized and sold through a network of “people’s shops.”

Moreover, since the 1960s, women could vote and participate politically. They could also own and sell property independently of their husbands. Under the December 1969 Constitutional Proclamation Clause 5, they had equal status with men, including for education and employment, even though men played leading roles in society.

Until Washington and rogue NATO partners blocked its approval, the UN Human Rights Council praised Gaddafi in its January 2011 “Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: Libya Arab Jamahiriya.”

It said his government protected “not only political rights, but also economic, educational, social and cultural rights.” It also lauded his treatment of religious minorities, and “human rights training” of its security forces.

Throughout most of 2011, NATO’s killing machine destroyed 42 years of achievements. All Libyans benefitted. Why else did Gaddafi have overwhelming support?

His vision marked him for removal. It was just a matter of when, even though he cooperated with Western powers post-9/11 on matters of intelligence and terrorism.

Until vilified and targeted, he was welcomed in Western capitals. In 2003, he came in from the cold, became a valued Western ally, and had meetings and discussions with top officials like UK Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, France’s Nicolas Sarkozy, Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi, US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, and others.

He also participated in the 2009 G-8 Summit in L’Aquila, Italy as Chairman of the African Union. At the time, he met and shook hands with Obama.

Moreover, ABC News interviewed him live, and on January 21, 2009, The New York Times published his op-ed headlined, “The One-State Solution” to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. He called “living under one roof….the only option for a lasting peace.”

On May 16, 2006, Washington restored full diplomatic relations. Libya was removed from its state sponsors of terrorism list. At the time, Rice called the move:

“tangible results that flow from the historic decisions taken by Libya’s leadership in 2003 to renounce terrorism and to abandon its weapons of mass destruction programs….Libya is an important model as nations around the world press for changes in behavior by the Iranian and North Korean regimes.”

She also praised Gaddafi’s “excellent cooperation” in fighting terrorism. Moreover, he opened Libya’s markets to Western interests by arranging deals with Big Oil giants BP, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Occidental, France’s Total, Italy’s Eni Gas and others. By all appearances, he joined the club, so why turn on him?

Though on board in some ways, he very much wasn’t on others. He supported Palestinian rights. As a result, he opposed Israel’s occupation and Gaza’s siege.

Earlier he backed South Africa’s anti-apartheid struggles, as well as others in Northern Ireland, Spain, and elsewhere.

He opted out of AFRICOM’s imperial regional plan. He wanted Libyans to control their own resources and use revenues domestically for all Libyans. His Central Bank of Libya was state owned. It created its own money interest-free for economic growth, not speculation and wealth for predatory bankers.

He promoted pan-African unity, an idea anathema to Washington and Western powers. He advocated a new “Gold Standard,” replacing dollars with gold dinars, and hoped other African and Muslim states would adopt the idea. That alone got him targeted for removal.

He had nothing to do with downing Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. Neither did Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi. Scottish judges knew he was innocent but were pressured to convict.

Gaddafi never admitted fault. He took responsibility solely to have international sanctions removed. To this day, he and al-Megrahi stand falsely accused. Likely CIA /MI6/and/or Mossad involvement is never mentioned.

A Final Comment

Libyan Investigators have legitimate credentials as human rights supporters. Organizations like PCHR do extraordinary work. They deserve praise, encouragement and help.

Their report highlighted international crimes, need for more investigation, and prosecutions for those responsible.

It expressed concern for ongoing abuses in detention, mistreatment of foreign workers, and forced displacements of suspected Gaddafi loyalists. It called for measures to stop ongoing crimes.

Nonetheless, it wrongfully said “Libya is emerging from 42 years of authoritarian rule and governance characterized by injustice, the denial of fundamental human rights, and impunity.”

Libya’s now repressively occupied. A climate of fear prevails. Insurgent killers threaten Gaddafi supporters. Silence best protects them. Nonetheless, Libyans revealed crimes committed by NATO and rebel rat forces.

However, others condemning Gaddafi appear suspect. Indeed, he had enemies, but most Libyans supported him with good reason. As a result, the report tragically falls short. It includes NATO and insurgent crimes but mischaracterizes Gaddafi’s rule.

Hopefully, another mission will follow in less volatile times. Violence still rages. Little gets reported. Western media scoundrels entirely suppress it. Libyans deserve better. Their nation was peaceful until NATO showed up. Now it’s destroyed and all previously enjoyed rights lost.

Mission team members must acknowledge it and point fingers where they belong.

NOTE:

In mid-January, 12,000 US troops were positioned in Malta ahead of occupying Libya. On January 18, Libya SOS said hundreds of American soldiers already arrived. Libya’s Western-appointed foreign minister said 6,000 came to Tripoli’s Mitiga International Airport.

Straightaway, they set up “mobile camps and equipment around oil fields and refineries.” In other words, they’re protecting Western interests, principally oil. Libyans lost their rightful resources and living standard they afforded.

“Tunis Focus” reports that US forces are in Brega, Ras Lanouf, Sirte, and Tripoli’s Mitiga International Airport. Moreover, US and NATO helicopters, warplanes, and drones now patrol Libyan airspace. They’re surveilling and attacking suspicious targets.

Ahead lies occupation, neo-colonization, pillaging, exploitation, violence and repression. It persists wherever America shows up. So does overwhelming suffering and human misery. Libyans experienced it for months. Much more lies ahead.

 NOVANEWS

Police to investigate MI6 over rendition and torture of Libyans

The deputy prime minister says the government will co-operate with a Scotland Yard investigation into secret MI6 rendition operations

Editor’s note:   Top Brit agents face prosecution for working with Gaddafi torture ring, again totally debunking Gaddafi backers.  New chemical warfare plants in Southern Libya, everything in Hebrew, evidence across Libya indicts Gaddafi regime as tied to Bush, Blair and Israel

Ian Cobain, Guardian.co.uk, Thursday

Scotland Yard has opened a criminal investigation into secret MI6 rendition operations that resulted in leading Libyan dissidents being abducted and flown to Tripoli where they were subsequently tortured in Muammar Gaddafi’s prisons.

The announcement came as police and the director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, said there was insufficient evidence to prosecute any individual MI5 or MI6 officers following lengthy investigations into allegations of British complicity in the torture of terrorism suspects in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The new investigation is to focus on Abdul Hakim Belhaj and Sami al-Saadi, who lodged complaints with the police last November after the chance discovery of a cache of classified documents in an abandoned Libyan government office laid bare the role that MI6 played in their rendition.

Saadi was detained in Hong Kong in 2004 and then forced on to a plane to Tripoli with his wife and four children in an operation that MI6 mounted in co-operation with Gaddafi’s intelligence chief, Moussa Koussa. Saadi says he suffered years of torture.

Belhaj was detained in Bangkok along with his pregnant wife after an MI6 tip-off, and allegedly tortured by American agents for several days before being flown to Tripoli where he says he was tortured and detained for several years. His wife, who was detained for several months, has not spoken publicly about the manner in which she was treated. British officials have not sought to deny the involvement of MI6 in either rendition.

Instead, they have stressed that each resulted from what they describe as “ministerially authorised government policy”, raising the possibility that the new Yard inquiry will require the questioning of ministers of the last Labour government. In addition, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service announced that they were establishing a joint panel that would examine other allegations of UK complicity in torture and rendition levelled by a number of former Guantánamo inmates and others detained in the so-called war on terror.

These complainants include Shaker Aamer, the last British resident still held at Guantánamo. The panel will decide whether the allegations should be examined first by the official inquiry that was established by David Cameron 18 months ago, and which is waiting to start hearing evidence, or whether police should investigate immediately.

A statement issued on Thursday by Starmer and Lynne Owens, an assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan police, said the panel would consider “whether there is any significant risk that any available evidence would not be available or would be weakened” if an investigation did not take place immediately, or whether “the allegation in question is so serious that it is in the public interest to investigate it now”.

This panel advised on the Libyan cases, and the police decided that “the allegations raised in the two specific cases concerning the alleged rendition of named individuals to Libya and the alleged ill-treatment of them in Libya are so serious that it is in the public interest for them to be investigated now rather than at the conclusion of the detainee inquiry”.

Scotland Yard detectives have spent 30 months investigating allegations that the UK’s intelligence agencies had become so close to the torture inflicted by overseas governments that their officers had committed serious criminal offences. One inquiry, codenamed Operation Hinton, focused on the events surrounding MI5′s interrogation of Binyam Mohamed in May 2002, several weeks after he had been detained in Pakistan, and later events in Morocco.

Proceedings brought on Mohamed’s behalf showed that MI5 knew he was being mistreated before an officer was sent to Karachi to question him. The CPS decided more than a year ago that that officer – identified only as Witness B – should not face charges, but Operation Hinton continued while detectives pursued what Starmer described as a “wider investigation into other potential criminal conduct”. This involved attempting to trace responsibility for Witness B’s actions up MI5′s chain of command and beyond.

The investigation showed that “members of the Security Service provided information to the US authorities about Mr Mohamed and supplied questions for the US authorities to put to Mr Mohamed while he was being detained between 2002 and 2004″, the statement said.

However, the CPS has also concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute any individual on the basis that they “knew or ought to have known that there was a real or serious risk that Mr Mohamed would be exposed to ill treatment amounting to torture”.

The statement added: “Nothing in this decision should be read as concluding that the ill-treatment alleged by Mr Mohamed did not take place or that it was lawful.” A second investigation, codenamed Operation Iden, concentrated on events in 2002 at Bagram airfield north of Kabul, where the US military had established a prison, and where both MI5 and MI6 officers interrogated a number of suspects after being given written instruction from London that “the law does not require you to intervene to prevent” the mistreatment they were witnessing.

That investigation was triggered after MI6 referred one of its own officers to the attorney general in September 2009. “The offences considered were aiding and abetting torture, aiding and abetting war crimes, false imprisonment, aiding and abetting assault, and misconduct in public office,” the statement said. That investigation foundered on unsuccessful attempts to take a statement from a particular individual who was said to have been mistreated in the presence of an MI6 interrogator. It is thought that this was because it was not possible to be certain about the identity of the individual.

In addition, US officials who were thought to have been present refused to be interviewed by police. “On the account that has been given by the member of the Secret Intelligence Services and taking into account all other available evidence, there is insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of convicting him of any criminal offence,” the statement concluded. It is unclear when the official inquiry, chaired by Sir Peter Gibson, a former appeal court judge, will begin hearing evidence.

In a statement on Thursday, the inquiry panel said: “The detainee inquiry panel will now carefully consider its next steps and Sir Peter Gibson will make an announcement in due course.” Most major human rights groups are boycotting the inquiry, claiming that it will be too secretive and is insufficiently independent of government, but the Foreign Office is mounting a renewed effort to persuade them back on board. The head of MI6, Sir John Sawers, said he welcomed the decision not to charge any of his officers at the conclusion of the twin investigations and said that the “courageous individual” at the centre of Operation Iden would now be able to continue his work in support of national security. He added that MI6 would co-operate with the Libyan investigations.

“It is in the service’s interest to deal with the allegations being made as swiftly as possible so we can draw a line under them and focus on the crucial work we now face in the future.” Detectives are thought to have already begun examining the documentation that was uncovered in Tripoli last month by an investigator with Human Rights Watch, the New York-based NGO. The documents will also form the basis of civil claims that Saadi and Belhaj and their families are bringing against the British government. It is not yet clear which ministers may have authorised the secret Libyan rendition operations in the way that well-placed Whitehall sources have asserted.

After the documents were discovered, Tony Blair, who was prime minister at the time, insisted he knew nothing about them. Similarly, Jack Straw, who was then foreign secretary, said in a radio interview: “The position of successive foreign secretaries, including me, is that we were opposed to unlawful rendition, opposed to torture or similar methods and not only did we not agree with it, we were not complicit in it, nor did we turn a blind eye to it.” He added: “No foreign secretary can know all the details of what … intelligence services are doing at any one time.”

Shortly after Blair and Straw issued their denials, Sir Richard Dearlove, who was head of MI6 at the time, said: “It was a political decision, having very significantly disarmed Libya, for the government to co-operate with Libya on Islamist terrorism. The whole relationship was one of serious calculation about where the overall balance of our national interests stood.” The year after the joint UK-Libyan operations were mounted, Straw told MPs they must disbelieve allegations of UK involvement in rendition “unless we all start to believe in conspiracy theories and that the officials are lying, that I am lying, that behind this there is some kind of secret state which is in league with some dark forces in the United States”.

Asked following Dearlove’s statement whether he still maintained that he was unaware of the Libyan rendition operations, and whether he knew which ministers Dearlove could be referring to, Straw said he had no further comment to make. Blair also declined to make any further comment.

NOVANEWS

by Stephen Lendman

On January 3, Middle East Online contributor Jay Deshnukh headlined, “Ex-rebels’ war for money, power: Fierce clashes erupt in Tripoli,” saying:

In central Tripoli, fighting claimed two lives as “former rebels from….Misurata clashed with….ex-fighters from the Libyan capital, witnesses said.”

Heavy gunfire was exchanged in broad daylight “between Zawiyah and Al-Saidi streets near a” Gaddafi regime intelligence headquarters building.

Neighborhood sections were “surrounded by hundreds of (heavily armed) rebels.”

Throughout Tripoli, militia brigades control former government buildings. Their presence challenges Western-installed Transitional National Council (NTC) figures. Abdul Hakim Belhadj led them until he left to join Syrian insurgents.

On January 4, Pravda.ru contributor Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey headlined, “Libya latest news: Chaos,” saying:

Major media scoundrels are largely silent about ongoing violence and conflict. “Credible sources” report “utter chaos.” Rebel faction clashes continue. Internal dissension affects TNC unity. Libya’s in disarray.

In December, rebel groups clashed in Tripoli and at Mitiga air base. Misurata and Benghazi skirmishes erupted. Bani Walid tribes headed for Tripoli. “Strong fights among groups of terrorists and Libyan Green Resistance (Jamahiriya forces)” continue.

Zintan militia fighters and Green Resistance elements battled “Al Qaeda Bel Haj militia….” They hold Saif al-Islam Gaddafi captive. They won’t release him to International Criminal Court (ICC) custody because it has no jurisdiction in Libya.

“Racist NTC/NATO terrorist forces destroy(ed) a Taourga cemetery.” Green flags fly “everywhere” in Al-Zawiyah. They’re also visible throughout Sabha, Gharyan, Tarhouna, and Ghadames.

“NATO knows that the people of Libya do not accept their criminal terrorist forces as ‘Government.’ ” Green Resistance and Jamahiriya militia attacked insurgent terrorists.

On January 5, Algeria ISP headlined, “New Resistance green opposition,” saying:

Clashes erupted in Tripoli’s El Islami district. Warchfana resistance fighters contested Misurata rebels. “At Mazda, the fighters of the Liberation Army of Libya destroyed the headquarters of the local” NTC council.

Misurata rebels shelled Zliten with “heavy artillery.” Resistance fighters defend the city.

On January 4, New York Times writer David Goodman headlined, “Libyan Leader Says Militia Clashes Could Create Civil War,” saying:

Western-installed TNC chairman Mustafa Abdul Jalil “bluntly warned late Tuesday that the government faced ‘bitter options’ as it struggled to rein in thousands of fighters who joined regional militias” during months of fighting.

Many now remain in Tripoli. They won’t disarm and claim interests to protect. Clashes across Libya continue.

In January, South Africa’s UN ambassador Baso Sangqu, serving as rotating Security Council president, wants Libyan human rights abuses investigated, including NATO ones.

“They were supposed to be precision strikes,” he said, “but it was clear that those were not that precise.”

NATO lied saying it operated carefully. In fact, civilians were willfully targeted. Massacres occurred. Well over 100,000 died, and multiples more were injured, many seriously.

Depleted and enriched uranium weapons were used. So were other terror ones. The overall toll of death and destruction was horrendous.

“A recent on-the-ground examination by The New York Times of airstrike sites found credible evidence of dozens of civilians killed.”

In fact, many thousands died. Times correspondents ignored them during fighting, even though they witnessed after actions results.

Moreover, before NATO intervened, Libyans enjoyed peace and prosperity. Jamahiriya benefits are gone. They’re resisting to restore them. As a result, protracted struggle continues to end TNC rule, occupation and rebel rat infestations.

In addition, thousands of Gaddafi loyalists are detained. At least, 7,000 are incarcerated under horrific conditions. However, according to the Committee for Justice for the Disappeared, militia forces secretly hold over 35,000.

Suspected Gaddafi loyalists are targeted, abducted, and either killed or imprisoned. TNC officials and NATO aren’t stopping them. As a result, tribes are arming in self-defense. What’s ahead isn’t clear, but greater civil conflict is likely to restore Jamihiriya government.

Former French Foreign Minister Revelations

Former Foreign Minister Roland Dumas and anti-colonialist lawyer Jacques Verges‘ new book is titled, “Sarkozy Sous BHL.” It reveals French military crimes in Libya.

It holds Nicolas Sarkozy criminally responsible for bombing Libyan cities, including civilian targets, vital infrastructure, and cultural treasures.

It exposes NATO’s lie about precision bombing with few civilian casualties. It also discussed earlier French relations with Gaddafi, beginning in 1983.

As a parliamentary member, Dumas was sent secretly to establish good Libyan – French relations. In 1985, America intervened to convince France that Gaddafi had chemical weapons threatening Western interests.

For years, France objected to US aggression. Under Sarkozy, policy changed. Dumas said war was planned long before last February. Today, Syria and Iran are prime targets. Plans are in place to attack them.

Dumas, Verges, and other lawyers sued Sarkozy for war crimes. The case remains ongoing.

A Final Comment

On December 31, Mathaba headlined, “Muammar Gaddafi Voted As Human Rights Hero of the Year,” saying:

In an Amnesty International USA poll, Gaddafi leads others as voting continues. Until Washington and NATO blocked its approval, the UN Human Rights Council praised Gaddafi in its January 2011 “Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: Libya Arab Jamahiriya.”

It said his government protected “not only political rights, but also economic, educational, social and cultural rights.” It also lauded his treatment of religious minorities, and “human rights training” of its security forces.

NATO’s killing machine destroyed 42 years of achievements, benefitting all Libyans. Gaddafi’s vision marked him for removal.

If Western nations matched him, imperial wars would end. So would homelessness, hunger and human deprivation. Instead, “new world order” imperialists want super-wealth and power solely for themselves.

Libya was one of many targets. Others will follow to extinguish freedom everywhere if they succeed.

NOVANEWS

Cynthia McKinney

While doing the reading for my schoolwork, my professor chanced upon this article and sent it to the class. I’m sharing it with you because I think this is very important. And it’s clear from the state of things, the problem resides not just in corporate suites, but also on journalists’ beats and among the antiwar chique. We have a pervasive problem that has succeeded in rotting most of our institutions and organizations and even the individuals who lead them. The article is about a scholar who is trying to help us understand where we have gone wrong. The scholar’s application is to corporations. I extend it to other activities that shape how we view the world and what our possible responses to those views are.

The sad fact is that even among people who are supposed to be our heroes, our leaders, something has gone terribly wrong that excuses can be made for a particular political party that are somehow supposed to shield them from a more critical view–when the issues are life and death, the vitality of our country, the protection of Mother Earth, the preservation of our humanity.

Of course, I’m extremely saddened by the video of the torture of the Imam who survived NATO’s bombing in Libya as he accompanied a group of Imams on their way to make peace with their disgruntled brothers and sisters in the eastern part of the country. Firmly in the grips of NATO’s Libyan allies, this Imam who tried to bring peace to his country now faces torture. I appeared on his television show; the DIGNITY Delegation interviewed him as he recounted his harrowing experience to survive the bombing. I still have in my possession copies of the identity cards of the young students of the Koran who were killed by NATO’s precise humanitarian bombing.

Lurking inside the scripts of even progressive media outlets are characterizations of a brutal war of aggression as a “civil war.” I should be accustomed to this by now–it’s the way most of the conflicts in Africa are characterized–a kind of “disinformation shorthand,” that keeps the hidden hand hidden. In reality, the chaos created is a purposeful chaos that facilitates the theft of African resources–or preserves unfettered access to a geo-strategically important piece of real estate. And those who erase the fingerprints of the hidden hand that creates the chaos, are in actuality, the perpetrators’ handmaidens.

So, we get journalists who tweet civilian targets in to NATO for bombing so that other journalists can call it a civil war. What we are witnessing is historical revisionism even before the present becomes history. I saw this very same phenomenon occur around what has become known to the world as the Rwandan Genocide. When it comes to Africa (or Africans–including in the Diaspora) it seems extremely easy for “The Left” to get it wrong. And, the stealing and the killing go on.

And now, 700 Libyans under the leadership of Libyan Al Qaeda NATO ally, Belhadj, have reportedly traveled with their NATO/Qatari weapons to start the “humanitarian intervention” in Syria.

Remember what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. warned us about “friends:”

In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.

NOVANEWS

Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism! 224

December 2011/January 2012

NATO said it was going to stop a massacre and then committed one. It has left Libya torn apart between over 50 armed militias; gangs launch frenzied hunts for former government supporters. Black African men, women and children have been rounded up, imprisoned, lynched and disappeared. Meanwhile, the Financial Times devotes an entire page – ‘In a ruinous state: reconstructing Libya’ – to the business opportunities that the devastation offers (18 November 2011).

NATO flew approximately 28,000 sorties, averaging almost 133 a day for nearly eight months, and killed between 50,000 and 70,000 people. Sirte, a town of 100,000 people, is almost deserted and looks like Hamburg after the Allies’ firestorm bombing in July 1943. The murder of Colonel Gaddafi on 20 October was an act of depravity. In Socialist Worker (29 October 2011) the reactionary Alex Callinicos wrote, ‘the West’s role in the dictator’s downfall shouldn’t stop us celebrating.’ Callinicos compares Gaddafi to Mussolini, who like the Italian fascist, was, he says, killed by ‘popular militias’.

At least 13,000 people have been gaoled without trial or evidence by Libya’s supposed liberators. A UN report on Libya since the government’s fall, seen by The Independent, states, ‘Sub-Saharan Africans, in some cases suspected of being mercenaries, constitute a large number of the detainees. Some detainees have reportedly been subjected to torture and ill-treatment. Cases have been reported of individuals being targeted because of the colour of their skin.’ (24 November 2011). This is the work of those whom Callinicos calls ‘popular militias’.

The UN report describes towns and streets under the control of armed militias, settling internecine scores with gun battles and the National Transitional Council (NTC) powerless to intervene. The Zintani militia captured Saif Al Islam Gaddafi and, rather than turn him over to the interim government in Tripoli, they are bartering him in exchange for position and power.

On 31 October the NTC installed Abdurrahim Al Kreib as the new prime minister. He worked as a professor in the United Arab Emirates at the Petroleum Institute, funded by BP, Royal Dutch Shell and Total. The first British company to benefit from the NTC is Heritage Oil, headed by Tony Buckingham. In October Heritage bought a $19 million stake in Libya’s Sahara Oil, a Benghazi-based oil trading company. Buckingham worked as a mercenary in Angola and Sierra Leone, ploughing oil and diamond money into Heritage Oil, and last year donated £100,000 to the British Conservative Party. The NTC’s acting finance and oil chief, Ali Tarhouni, promised a ‘smaller government and a larger and freer private sector’, adding ‘the challenge here is that this is a welfare state’. The Financial Times lists health, education and public transport as among the targets for privatisation and for British companies to aim at.

It is a disgrace that Callinicos should serve as an apologist for NATO and join in the demonisation of Gaddafi that NATO used to justify the attack. Gaddafi was the leader of an oppressed nation, formerly colonised by Italy and then Britain and France. The Libyan state repressed internal opposition and collaborated with the US rendition programme against Islamists. However, it achieved the highest life expectancy and lowest infant mortality rate in Africa. It was for the Libyan people and them alone to deal with their government, not NATO and the British ruling class. The Libyan people have nothing to celebrate as they are preyed on by corporate vultures. They will regroup and resist.

Trevor Rayne