No arms for Libyan rebels?

Voice of Russia

On Thursday, the House of Representatives passed a resolution barring any military supplies to Libyan rebels. The resolution was supported both by Republicans and Democrats – with 48 Democratic representatives backing the Republican-sponsored resolution.

The vote clearly demonstrates the frustration felt in the US over the administration’s policies that have brought the situation in Libya to a stalemate.

“Libya did not attack us. Libya did not attack NATO,” said Representative Tom Cole, one of the sponsors of the resolution. “However much we detest Mr. Gaddafi and his regime, we have no reason to be at war.”

On the other hand, the resolution has irritated the “hawks” ready to promote what they see as American interests whatever the cost. Top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee and former presidential candidate John McCain was much disappointed by the decision of his House’s colleagues. “I am saddened by the abandonment of America’s traditional support of those struggling for freedom and democracy,” said Senator McCain.

At the same time, passing of the resolution does not signal the readiness of the US establishment to withdraw from the war altogether. On the same day, the House rejected a resolution that would have prohibited funds for the US military to continue their participation in the anti-Gaddafi military campaign.

More so, the representatives rejected several amendments that would have accelerated the withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan thus sending clear signals that the overall strategy of US domination remains intact.

What the lawmakers – especially Obama’s opponents among Republicans – are concerned with, is not the US foreign policy as such, but its presentation to the public in view of the already started the 2012 campaign. And therefore, one could expect more moves aimed at torpedoing the administration’s initiatives.

One of the matters the representatives are most concerned with is the purely procedural issue – whether President Obama has violated the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which requires a president to seek congressional approval within 60 days of the first military strikes, a move he as the commander in chief did not make.

Lies about the war on Libya

Intifada-Palesine
Thierry Meryssan

Hillary Clinton, Nicolas Sarkozy and
Alain Juppé at the Paris summit on Libya.

It has been said that truth is the first casualty of war. The Libyan military operations and Resolution 1973, which functions as their legal basis, are not an exception to the rule. These are presented to the public as a necessary measure to protect the civilian population against indiscriminate repression at the hands of Colonel Gaddafi. In reality they are classic imperial goals. Let us look at the following elements for clarification.

Crimes Against Humanity

To paint a black picture of the situation, the Atlanticist press pretended that the hundreds of thousands of people who were fleeing from Libya were doing so to escape from a massacre. Press agencies reported on thousands of deaths and spoke of “crimes against humanity“. Resolution 1970 referred to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court “the widespread and systematic attacks against the civilian population“.

In fact, the Libyan conflict can be read both in political terms and from a tribal perspective. Immigrant workers were the first to fall victim, being brutally forced to leave the country. The clashes between Gaddafi’s supporters and the insurrection have certainly been bloody, but never in the purported proportions. There has never been a systematic repression against civilian population.

Support for the “Arab Spring”

During his speech before the Security Council, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé sang the praises of the “Arab Spring” in general and the Libyan insurrection in particular.
His lyrical speech cloaked dark intentions. Juppé didn’t utter a single word about the bloody repressions in Yemen and Bahrain, yet he paid tribute to King Mohamed VI of Morocco as if he were one of the revolutionary agents of change [1] thus contributing to worsen France’s already disastrous image in the Arab world thanks to the President Sarkozy.

Support from the African Union and the Arab League

Since the beginning of these events, France, Great Britain and the United States have persisted in denying the fact that this is a West-sponsored war, although French Interior Minister Claude Guéant did refer to Nicolas Sarkozy’s “crusade“ [2].

The three countries in question brought into play the alleged support from the African Union and from the Arab League. In reality, however, the African Union condemned the repression and recognised the legitimacy of the democratic claims but invariably pronounced itself against a foreign armed intervention

Recognition of the Libyan National Transitional Council

There are three rebellious regions in Libya. A National Transitional Council was constituted in Benghazi; it then merged with a Provisional Government set up by Gaddafi’s Minister of Justice, who subsequently aligned with the rebels [4]. According to the Bulgarian authorities, this is the same character who arranged for the torture of the Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian medic that were held by the Libyan regime for an extended period of time.

By recognizing the Libyan National Transitional Council and absolving its new president, the Western coalition picked their own interlocutors and foisted them on the rebels as their leaders. This enabled the coalition to weed out the revolutionary nasserists, khomeinists and communists.

The coalition’s aim was to be ahead of the game and avoid what had happened in Tunisia and Egypt when they imposed a government tied to the official Party without Ben Ali or a Suleiman government without Mubarak, both of which were also ousted by the revolutionaries in the end.

Arms Embargo

If the objective were to protect the population, the embargo would have been crafted to target the mercenaries and the weapons funneled to the Gaddafi regime. Instead, the embargo was extended to the rebels to prevent any possible victory. Therefore, this is obviously about stopping the revolution in its tracks.

No flight zone

If the objective were to protect the civilian population, the no-fly zone would have been limited to the rebel territory (as was done in Iraq with Kurdistan). In fact, the restriction affects the entire national territory. In this way the coalition hopes to maintain the balance of power between the forces on the ground and divide the country in 4 areas: the 3 rebel areas and the area loyal to Gaddafi. This de facto division of Libyan territory goes hand in hand with the one in Sudan and the Ivory Coast, which mark the first stages of the “Remodeling of Africa”.

Assets freeze

If the objective were to protect the civilian population, only the personal assets of the Gaddafi family plus those belonging to the regime’s dignitaries would have been frozen to prevent them from violating the arms embargo. But the freeze has also been enforced against the assets of the Libyan state. Now, it just so happens that Libya – a wealthy oil-producing country – possesses considerably large assets, part of which are invested in the Bank of the South, an institution dedicated to the funding of projects in the Third World.

As pointed out by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, freezing the assets will not protect the civilians. The real aim here is to re-establish the monopoly of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

Coalition of the willing

If the objective were to protect the civilian population, the organisation in charge of implementing Resolution 1973 should have been the UN. Instead, the military operations were being coordinated by the US AfriCom and currently by NATO [5] It was precisely for that reason that Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu was incensed at the French initiative and requested an explanation from NATO.


Less diplomatically, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin referred to Resolution 1973 as “is flawed and inadequate. If one reads it, then it immediately becomes clear that it authorises anyone to take any measures against a sovereign state. All in all, it reminds me of a medieval call to crusade,” he concluded. [6]





Thierry Meyssan is a French political analyst, founder and chairman of the Voltaire Network and the Axis for Peace conference. He publishes columns dealing with international relations in daily newspapers and weekly magazines in Arabic, Spanish and Russian. Last books published in English : 9/11 the Big Lie and Pentagate.

Obama's Fateful Abuse of War Powers

Uruknet
Paul Findley

The acts of war ordered by President Barack Obama against the government of Libya violated provisions of the U.S. Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973. He also exceeded his authority by pledging U.S. combat support to the United Nations Security Council and to NATO for military measures against Libya. The United States may soon find itself entrapped in a costly civil war in that North African nation.

Congress is complicit in creating this mess, because it failed to demand presidential compliance with the Constitution and public law and neglected its own explicit constitutional duty in the exercise of war powers.

The War Powers Resolution was enacted in the wake of the Vietnam ordeal by Members of Congress, myself included, who considered that war unauthorized by Congress and a gross abuse of Constitutional war powers. Our goal was to prevent future unauthorized presidential wars. I joined other Members of Congress in overriding President Richard Nixon’s veto, and during my remaining years on Capitol Hill I maintained close vigilance on presidential compliance. Compliance was satisfactory by Presidents Ford and Carter, as well as both Presidents Bush. In recent years I find no sign of vigilance or compliance. It is a sad, dangerous state of affairs.

Mandated presidential reports are a major feature of the resolution. In the absence of a war declaration, a written presidential report must be delivered to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate within 24 hours of each order that moves substantial U.S. military forces into hostile areas. It must list reasons for the decision, military forces to be committed, and the expected duration of war measures.

It cites a constitutional way for Congress to overturn any such presidential decision. Any Member of Congress can challenge the president’s decision by introducing a bill called a concurrent resolution of disapproval. If approved by both House and Senate, this legislation requires the president to rescind his war decision. The War Powers Resolution even authorizes expedited parliamentary procedures when a disapproval resolution is introduced in either chamber of Congress.

These provisions were intended to bring Congress close to the president as he ponders war-making decisions, a role clearly intended by the authors of the U.S. Constitution. The resolution limits the time for delivery of presidential reports to 24 hours, hoping the quick deadline will cause the president to give close attention to the likely reaction of Congress. We believed it could be an important, timely restraint on a president whose decision at the moment must be reflective and wise. It would also be a strong reminder that Congress has the power to overturn the president’s decision quickly by enacting a concurrent resolution of disapproval.

In assaulting Libya, President Obama acted as if the War Powers Resolution did not exist. Instead of sending a written report to congressional leaders within 24 hours, as required by law, he did not write until five days after the assault began. The five-day lapse was a violation of law but, in a sense, it was delivered in blinding speed. In recent years, reports mandated by the War Powers Resolution for delivery within 24 hours of presidential decisions, are usually bundled and delivered semi-annually. Yes, semi-annually.

Obama had ample time to consult with congressional leaders during the weeks preceding the assault on Libya, which meant consultations were legally mandated by the War Powers Resolution. None occurred.

From the start, Obama proceeded in a cavalier, almost casual manner. In announcing war measures in Libya, he mentioned neither Congress nor the U.S. Constitution. He did not even return to Washington from a visit in South America to make the announcement. He acted as if war-making is a routine privilege a president may undertake entirely at his option, like shaving or adjusting his necktie, without even a wink or nod toward the people’s branch of government. To this day Congress has not authorized acts of war in Libya.

We must face reality: The War Powers Resolution will work only if Congress is vigilant and demands full compliance by the president. Today’s Members of Congress, like those in the recent past, unwisely see decisions on war as a prickly nettle they are content to leave to the president. They need to be reminded that war is the worst burden government can place on citizens. It becomes heavier with the emergence of massive new high-tech war instruments, each of which magnifies, rather than reduces, the necessity of congressional restraint on presidential war-making. No citizen, not even the president, should have the authority to initiate war measures.

Obama’s abuse of war powers stands the Constitution on its head. He should be ashamed, and so should our complacent Congress for letting it happen.

- Paul Findley served as a Republican Representative from Illinois 1961-83 and is the founder of the Council for the National Interest and a board member of If Americans Knew. He has written six books, including the first book on the Israel Lobby, They Dare to Speak Out. His latest, Speaking Out: A congressman’s lifelong fight against bigotry, famine, and war, will be published in June by Chicago Review Press (Lawrence Hill Books imprint). This article was published in www.cnionline.org.