Lest we Forget Libya!

Every week we look at an article that is making inroads in the field of international relations. In the recent weeks, the world has been grappling with the war in Gaza, the Ebola outbreak in the Western African states of Sierra Leone, Liberia, Guinea and Nigeria. The embers of the conflict in Ukraine seem to be cooling off while infighting in Iraq has seen America sending rescue missions. Closer home in Tanzania, there seems to be no answer to the constitution deadlock. I hear the ruling party is flexing its political muscles while the UKAWA group remains intransigent. 

On Libya. While the global media casts its cameras in Gaza, Ukraine, Iraq and West Africa, the infighting in Libya seems to be forgotten. I asked my Canadian-Libyan friend Amjad how Libya was fairing after the fall of Gaddafi, and his answer was "The militants have taken over". Foreign Policy Magazine in the Passport series looks at the situation in Libya. Titled "Don't look Now, but Libya is Falling Apart", the author,  Siddhartha Mahanta, explores how the militants are fighting for the control of the oil wells in Libya. NATO intervention in Libya in 2011 which led to the fall of Muammar Gaddafi has been a subject of international debate. When the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1973 for a no-fly zone over Libya on 17 March 2011, the fall of Gaddafi was inevitable. The legitimacy of the resolution under the pretext of Right to Protect (R2P) is also a subject for debate. Critics of the UNSC further highlighted its flaws with the passing of Resolution 1973. 

Libya is now in the hands of hungry militants who are fighting themselves. One wing of the militants are aligning themselves with Islamists. Just like Iraq was stable under Sadam Hussein, so was Libya under Muammar Gaddafi. One excruciating fact is that both countries were undone by UNSC resolutions, which were against international law norms. As ISIS continue to wreck havoc in Iraq, the militants in Libya will get more radicalized. At whose expense was the brutal removal of Sadam and Gaddafi? The people of Iraq and Libya must be cursing and questioning the motives of the powers that be. But as we say in international relations, albeit in the realist thought, 'States pursue power at all cost and their primary concern is state survival'. 

 

The hypocrisy of US Foreign Policy in Ukraine

Russian President Vladimir Putin

There has been a buzz over Ukraine in the last few weeks. The media is reporting it as the Crisis in Ukraine, emblematic to previous media declaration such as those in Syria (Syrian Crisis), Egypt (the Crisis in Egypt) e.t.c. What started as street protests by the people of Ukraine over the country's stance of being anti-European Union, soon escalated and saw the entrance of other forces. Efforts to pacify the opposition factions by the now ousted President Viktor Yanukovich were squashed. Yanukovich had made serious concessions which the European Union rebuffed in contempt. The February-21 agreement was mediated by Russia, France, Germany and Poland and aimed to end the bloodshed in Kiev by reducing presidential powers and establishing a framework for a national unity government, in addition to electoral reform, constitutional changes, and early elections. These efforts failed and the opposition toppled Yanukovich.

John Kerry and Ukraine interim leaders

British Foreign Secretary William Hague

In a leaked telephone conversation between the US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador in Ukraine saw the use of 'undiplmatic' language (Fuck the EU). Russia was responsible for the telephone leak. The conversation between the two showed America's proclivity to meddling in foreign relations and determining the destinies of countries based on Washington's recourse. As soon as the 'crisis' took another dimension after the ouster of a legitimate government, Nuland's conversation and statements were quickly forgotten and the barrel shifted. The interim government, reminiscent of the Transitional National Council in Libya, received praise and admiration from the West. Kiev, the capital of Ukraine started to receive high profile visits from the British Secretary of State William Hague and his American counterpart John Kerry. It did not take John Kerry long to brand the actions by Russia on Ukranian autonomous region of Crimea as an 'incredible act of aggression'.  Russia had sent its troops to Crimea, a region  with a 59% Russian speakers. 

"It's an incredible act of aggression. It is really a stunning, willful choice by President (Vladimir) Putin to invade another country. Russia is in violation of the sovereignty of Ukraine. Russia is in violation of its international obligations," Kerry said. It hard to imagine these words coming out of John Kerry, whose country has in the past in utter disregard of international law and norms invaded countries and violated their sovereign authority and integrity using various euphemistic pretexts such as 'humanitarians' 'democracy' etc. Before the ongoing Geneva Talks over Iran Nuclear, there was heightened rhetoric of a plausible invasion of Iran with America's ally Israel fueling the rhetoric. Western media camouflaged in 'humanitarian plea' demanded Obama to act on Syria's use of chemical weapons on its citizens. In 2011, the US invaded Libya on humanitarian grounds brutally killing Muammar Gaddafi. The US has also used the drones, sending them to Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan allegedly to do away with 'terrorists'. All these acts are tantamount to aggression, the same crime they accuse Russia of doing. This is an aberration to the foundations of democracy and rule of law which US prides itself on. 

President Putin affirmed that Russia is not going to war with Ukraine and there are not trying to make Crimea apart of Russia. What is mind boggling is the$ 1 billion in US aid, loan guarantees pledged by US to help Ukraine economy. Your guess is as good as mine!   

Allies in Libya, Enemies in Mali

Via Al Monitor

Thanks to French President Francois Hollande, who felt the need to step in to contain the collapse of Mali, and a calamitous rescue operation by Algerian forces that resulted in the deaths of 37 hostages, the Western media has discovered Mali. 

The largest West African country is under threat of division in a war that sees government troops, along with a Western coalition led by the French, battling well-armed ethnic Tuaregs and the al-Qaeda-affiliated Ansaruldin group, who were already at war with each other.

Once known as French Sudan, Mali is one of France's main allies in sub-Saharan Africa. Fears are growing in Paris that the chaos might spill out to neighboring states fom what was anciently called "French West Africa," drastically affecting regional and international stability and peace. But that’s not all. France is concerned the spread will put what remains of its influence in this part of the world under serious threat.

The war in Mali, many believe, wasn’t entirely unpredictable for those keeping a close eye on the situation. There were strong indicators, such as weaponry and fighters crossing the loose borders. The country was forced to face the ambitions of well-armed ethnic Tuareg fighters, who returned home after the fall of Moammar Gadhafi’s regime in Libya.

Tuaregs revived their 100-year-old dream of an independent state in the Azawad territory to the north of Mali. They took advantage of a coup d'état that ousted President Amado Toumani Toure to control their area and declare independence with the help of an al-Qaeda-affiliated group.

The latter were looking for a safe haven in a hostile environment, especially amid the end of the Libyan war. The Islamists, later on, overthrew the Tuaregs and installed Shariah law in the area, a move some sources suggest was prompted by post-revolution Libya, whose leaders were keen to uproot any pro-Gadhafi sentiments near their borders. 

Post-revolution Libya is perhaps the most critical factor in the struggle for Mali; the fall of Gaddafi and the links the Ansaruldin have with the new rulers of Tripoli gave this war a different perspective. It is as if Mali were the arena where another version of the Libyan war resumed, though with different objectives.

Less than two years ago, NATO strikes helped the rebellion in Libya and paved the way for the opposition to end 40 years of Gadhafi rule. At that time foreign intervention was welcomed by Libyans, and not much opposed by Arabs and Muslims. This was in stark contrast with the reaction to foreign intervention in Iraq in 2003.

While in Libya, I had the chance to meet Abdulmonem Al Mukhtar, once a member of the Islamic Libyan fighting group, who was killed just weeks after we met in April 2011. Al Mukhtar fought against the Americans in Afghanistan and returned to Libya on March 2011 along with 100 of his loyal fighters to take part in the war.

Near Ajdabiya, to the east of Libya, I asked how he could be an enemy of NATO in Afghanistan and an ally in Libya. He laughed, told me not to be a “fanatic" and added, "In Afghanistan, they are an occupation force. Here, they are helping us topple the dictator."

It wasn’t only Abdulmonem who approached the situation this way. Everyday people gave similar answers, and mainstream media organizations weren’t far behind in that logic. There was a common belief that in a war for liberation, all means were justifiable.

Later on some of the Syrians revolting against President Bashar al-Assad started demanding foreign intervention to help them defeat the regime, and so did those who supported them around the Arab and Muslim world. People initially welcomed foreign intervention — at least, until they contemplated it further.

As a result of the Libyan war, a new war started in the region. Once again, the tables are turned. Yesterday’s allies in Libya are today’s enemies in Mali. Voices refusing foreign intervention became louder and louder, calling on the West, specifically France, to respect the sovereignty of the sub-Saharan state. Some dubbed the military intervention a new crusade, while the presidents of Egypt and Tunisia and the prime minister of Libya all warned the intervention will fuel conflict in the region.

Many didn’t realize that a war in Mali had surfaced until news of foreign intervention made headlines. Some are starting to raise questions about the consequences of foreign military intervention, and the forces it will unleash. The Libyan “success” preceded the terrorist attack on the US consulate in Ben Ghazi, which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, and now we have Mali. 

It is not that the war in Mali started only now; it's only now that the world started thinking of its consequences.

 

Ali Hashem is an Arab journalist who is serving now as Almayadeen news network's chief correspondent.

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/01/mali-qaddafi-libya-terrorism.html?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=5933#ixzz2J01Wh78c

US, Zionism prime suspects over anti-Islam movie: The Ayatollah

Ayatollah Khamenei

Nicodemus Minde and various sources

The Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has slammed the antagonistic policies of Zionism and the US as the root cause of the recent production of an American movie desecrating Prophet Mohammad (PBUH). 

This message comes after the US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton publicly said that the movie has nothing to do with the US government. Clinton goes on to say the film is "disgusting and reprehensible." She calls it a cynical attempt to offend people for their religious beliefs. Clinton says the U.S. would never stop Americans from expressing their views, no matter how distasteful. And she says the film is no justification for violence or attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities and personnel. 

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

There is no doubt that the film has been badly received in the Muslim Arab world. Many commentaries have been written on the turnout of the events leading to the storming of various American embassies in the Arab nations and the protests after with. But one thing stands out clearly. There is still a deep seated enmity between the Arab world and the US. Watching one of the leading cable news networks, a protestor in Egypt analyzed the tensions in a very unique way. He publicly condemned the film saying it was an affront to their Prophet (PBUH) and their religion but he also denounced the violent protests. Egyptian President has come under intense criticism for not condemning the violent attacks aimed at the US embassy in Cairo.  As the Ayatollah says, the US and their ally Israel remain as prime suspects.