Segacs's World I Know

Posts Tagged ‘libya’

Libya’s long-standing dictator is no more: Muammar el-Gadhafi is confirmed killed after being captured and arrested by revolutionary forces:

Gadhafi was captured alive and unharmed as troops from the National Transitional Council overran his hometown of Sirte on Thursday, Jibril said. But a gunbattle erupted between transitional council fighters and Gadhafi’s supporters as his captors attempted to load him into a vehicle, Jibril said, leaving Gadhafi with a wound to his right arm.

More shooting erupted as the vehicle drove away, and Gadhafi — who ruled Libya for nearly 42 years before rebel forces overthrew him in August — was hit in the head, Jibril said, Gadhafi died moments before arriving at a hospital in Misrata, Jibril said, citing the city’s coroner.

This is a symbolic milestone in Libya for those who were seeking an end to Gadhafi’s brutal regime.

But life isn’t a chess game, and you don’t win with checkmate. Libya’s real struggle to emerge from the darkness has only just begun, and initial signs are not promising.

The UN Security Council has approved military action in Libya. Now the question remains: who will follow through?

So far, all of the uprisings across the Arab world have been domestic matters, deliberately so. By upping the ante against his own citizens to the point where the world had no choice but to intervene, Qaddafi has internationalized this crisis, and don’t think that he hasn’t calculated that into his plans. After all, every dictator needs some misdirection in the form of a foreign imperialist invader in the form of the United States or one of its “little Satan” allies. This could shift the whole tide and tone of this movement.

Obama, to his credit, doesn’t sound so eager to willingly take up that role. Action is needed in Libya, but Obama recognizes that there’s an optics problem if the US were to lead the charge. France and the UK sound tepidly on board, but support from elsewhere may be more moral than physical.

And with world attention still focused on Japan, everything else – Libya included – is taking a back seat. It’s hard to say who that benefits right now.

Of course, the question that nobody’s asking just yet is, what’s next? What happens after Qaddafi? What happens when any opposition movement gets tainted by the notion of being propped up by the Europeans or the Americans? Will whoever sends in troops be able to anticipate an exit date?

Stay tuned. This story isn’t getting any smaller.

Update: Canada is officially involved.

The international media and the blogosphere are up in arms about the election of Sudan to the UN Human Rights Commission:

Sichan Siv, the U.S. delegate to the council, accused Sudan of having no right to sit on the rights commission because of ethnic cleansing in Darfur where government troops are accused of backing Arab militia which pillage black Africa villages, raping and killing. The Khartoum government denies it is involved in ethnic cleansing.

This isn’t too surprising. The U.N. is a master of hypocrisy. After all, when Libya can chair the Human Rights commission, then it isn’t too much of a leap to see how we end up with a commission whose primary purpose seems to be condemning Israel while whitewashing all the human rights abuses taking place around the world by its own members.

But it does strike me as ironic that, while the UNCHR re-elects Sudan, another UN body, the UNHCR (not to be confused) is frantically trying to help over a hundred thousand Sudanese refugees who’ve fled into Chad because of the ethnic cleansing that Sudan denies is taking place. And UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan warned that large-scale ethnic cleansing could take place without quick intervention.

So, to the United Nations, I have to ask: which is it? Is Sudan worthy being part of a human rights watchdog, or are they the guys the watchdogs ought to be watching? The UN’s schizophrenic behaviour shouldn’t surprise me anymore. It really shouldn’t.

My new theory is that Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi has been kidnapped, and a lookalike puppet controlled by the US government is replacing him. Yep, I sound like one of those wacky conspiracy theorists! But how else do you explain his recent 180s? First, voluntarily giving up Libya’s WMDs and allowing weapons inspectors free access. And now the announcement that Libya will be making peace with Israel (via LGF):

A high-ranking Israeli delegation is expected to visit Libya with the aim of reaching a mutual understanding on the signing of a peace agreement, Kuwaiti newspaper A-Siyasa, quoted on the Al Bawaba website, reported Tuesday.

Meanwhile, in comments published Tuesday, Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi was quoted as saying he is ready to compensate Libyan Jews whose properties were confiscated. He also said he is prepared to allow Libyans to travel to Israel, according to Arab press reports.

Call me cynical and jaded, but I’m having a hard time believing that there’s no catch to all of this. What’s next? Will the Islamic Jihad throw its suicide bomb manufacturing equipment into the sea? Will North Korea destroy its nuclear programs? Will Michael Moore wear a voluntary muzzle? (Ok, maybe that last one’s a bit too much to hope for…)

Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi is calling for a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi has published a “white book” outlining his ideas for a resolution of the Middle East conflict. Gaddafi’s plan for a bi-national Jewish-Muslim state, to be called “Israstine,” is presented on a Hebrew language website in an attempt to promote his vision for peace directly to the Israeli public.

According to the website, Gaddafi’s Israstine state would be based on the following basic principles:

- Return of Palestinian refugees to their land

- A multi-national state, based on the Lebanese model

- Free elections, under UN supervision

- Joint Jewish-Palestinian parliament

- Total dismantling of weapons in Middle East

As tempting as it is to dismiss this crackpot idea, it should be noted that this has been the de facto policy of the Palestinians, the surrounding Arab states, and their advocates since 1948 or earlier. It hasn’t wavered. They all know full well that “Israstine” would take about 10 seconds to become Palestine, another Arab dictatorship and Muslim theocracy that expels its Jews or relegates them to second-class citizenship. Whoosh! Bye-bye Israel. That’s been their wet dream for as long as Arafat’s uniform has sported the map of “Palestine” as being the entire area of Israel.

Gaddafi’s willingness to admit this in the press, and even to publish it on a Hebrew-language website, shows how bold the Arab leaders have become of late. They’ve realized they can openly call for Israel’s destruction and the world will continue to support them, and throw them bones. This coming from Lybia, a brutal dictatorship with one of the worst human rights records in the world, and with no diplomatic ties with Israel. The same Lybia that chairs the UN Human Rights Commission.

In a backwards world, dictators can call for “one-state solutions” and nobody blinks an eyelash. The Palestinians can continue to blame Israel while refusing to take a single step on their cherished road map, and the world sympathizes. Innocent Israelis keep dying and the world blames them.

Well, hear this: “Israstine” will never, ever exist. Israel will keep on defending herself – alone and isolated if necessary – for as long as it takes until the world accepts the fact that the Jewish People have a state and it’s here for good.

The following letter in today’s Gazette questions the neutrality of the UN:

The consensus of opinion around the world is that no action should be taken against Iraq until such time as the UN arms inspectors uncover proof that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. But can we trust the UN’s “neutrality” in this situation?

The UN has just appointed Iraq to chair its disarmament conference in Geneva next month (Gazette, Feb. 4). It appointed Libya to chair the Human Rights Commission. It allowed Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, a known terrorist, to address the General Assembly while openly carrying a weapon.

Where is the UN’s credibility as a neutral body supposedly promoting peace on our planet?

Aaron Muscott
Dollard des Ormeaux

Well, unfortunately, the UN has never had any credibility as a “neutral body”. This is old news. From the countless one-sided General Assembly resolutions against Israel, to the twisting of the concept of “human rights” to mean “rights for select humans”, the UN lost its credibility decades ago.

The problem is that most people seem unaware of this. The world is pressuring the United States to get UN approval before attacking Iraq, as though a rubber-stamp from the UN would mean that the attack is legitimate.

The UN needs to clean up its act – fast.