The *other* reason for the no-fly zone in Libya.

[Cerridwen]

In remarks to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, William Burns, the under secretary for political affairs at the State Department, said Gadhafi's forces are only about 160 kilometers outside Benghazi.

"They've made advances, taking full advantage of their overwhelming military superiority in military firepower," Burns said.

He expressed fear that Gadhafi, now isolated by the world community, could turn to terrorism again.

"I think there is also a very real danger that if Gadhafi is successful on the ground, that you will also face a number of other considerable risks as well: The danger of him returning to terrorism and violent extremism himself, the dangers of the turmoil that he could help create at a critical moment elsewhere in the region," Burns told the committee. (emphasis added) link

For those of you who don't remember,

"I have proof that Gaddafi gave the order about Lockerbie," Mustafa Abdel-Jalil was quoted as saying in an interview with Expressen.

Expressen's online edition said its correspondent interviewed Abdel-Jalil outside the local parliament in the Libyan city of Al Bayda.

Gaddafi has accepted Libya's responsibility for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed all 259 people on board and 11 on the ground, and paid compensation to the victims' families. But he hasn't admitted personally giving the order for the attack.

Abdel-Jalil told Expressen that Gaddafi gave the order to Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the only man convicted in the bombing. (dated 24 Feb 2011) link

link to a .pdf of UN Resolution 1973

Highlights of the resolution:

<snip for 4 paragraph rule the line about no flights but aid planes>

# Authorises member states to "take all necessary measures" to "protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack"

# Excludes occupation force

# Toughens arms embargo by calling on all member states to "inspect in their territory vessels and aircraft bound to or from Libya"

# Widens asset freeze to include Libyan Investment Authority, Central Bank of Libya and Libyan National Oil Company among others

link

The resolution also includes additional assets freezes of several Gaddafi henchmen as well as two men who provided some of the mercenaries Gaddafi used to kill his people.

Over the weeks I have been tracking this, the people who originally began calling this a "civil war" were the right wingers and pro-Gaddafi stooges who were trying to obfuscate the information leaking out from Libya of Gaddafi's use of mercenaries and his special military forces against the Libyan people. I'm still not buying this is a civil war; this is a dictator using the arsenal he's built up over 42 years to keep his dictatorship over a people he has murdered, tortured, and terrorized for decades.

It looks from the reports I've been reading that France and the UK will be first up with some cooperation from Lebanon and the Arab League; perhaps including Qatar and UAE(? I can't find where I read it so going from memory on UAE).

Canada, too, has "plans to send six CF-18 fighter jets to help enforce a no-fly zone over Libya, broadcaster CTV said citing government sources, adding that they will fly alongside US, British and French aircraft, and those from other countries." link

If you've read anything by me on this board, you know I hate war. Violence makes no sense to me.

I hate genocide more. What Gaddafi is doing is genocide. No, you really won't be able to convince me otherwise.

There is much more information in the collection of links I've provided including reactions by those UN members who abstained and why they did so.

[joshcryer]

1. Good post Cerridwen.

[Cerridwen]

2. Thanks, Josh.

I'm trying to stay informed but it's damned tough.

Thanks for taking over the Libya reports threads. You save me a few google searches a day. :)

[Windy]

3. Great post. And I note that the resolution clearly states "NO occupying force!

That line alone makes it clear that this is a measure to protect the people of Libya and to assist the people in making a change to their government and to depose Gaddfi.

[readmoreoften]

4. Color me cynical if I don't think it'll actually work out like that.

[readmoreoften]

5. Remember, we're also not technically occupying Iraq in UN rhetoric.

[gateley]

8. Different situation. Regardless of what the UN calls it, we intended to invade

Iraq. I doubt anyone has any intentions of going into Libya. I hope.

[readmoreoften]

11. Why not? An oil rich country between the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutionaries.

Why would we want a base there? :shrug:

[gateley]

20. The Big Oil companies are already there, rebuilding the aging production

infrastructure - which is why Bush made them our friends.

I don't think Obama is willing to take on another war. Again, I hope I'm right.

[Cerridwen]

9. Every discussion I've heard or read, discusses the areas

in which "the West" has made mistakes in the past. There is much talk of caution that freezing assets and setting sanctions doesn't harm the very people, the Libyan people, they put those measures in place to protect or help. The same is discussed with regard to the history of occupying armies and the potential to create, again, the fusterclucks of our past.

I hope, maybe, they have learned from past mistakes...just this once?

[readmoreoften]

13. I hope so too. But I don't believe it. I hope I'm wrong.

But I don't think these are mistakes. The fact that Gingrich, Lieberman, and McCain are for the no-fly zone and airstrikes gives me great pause.

[Cerridwen]

15. There is no doubt in my mind that we have forces in the US,

including those you list, as well as around the world who are rubbing their hands in glee at the possibility they might get their hands on Libyan resources. I can only go by what I've read and heard the Libyan people, fighting on the ground, say they want. Perhaps they know the consequences and the dangers. Perhaps they're just tired of being blown up.

Time will tell.

[jacquelope]

12. Pray that Vader doesn't alter the agreement any further. n/t

.

[jaysunb]

6. k & r n/t

[meow mix]

7. k&r

[Newsjock]

10. So you're off to fill out an enlistment form?

Are you willing to die for your beliefs?

[Cerridwen]

14. Which belief? The one where I hate war; that violence doesn't

make sense to me; or that I hate genocide even more than war?

Which belief ties in with going to learn how to commit those very acts that most repulse me?

I'm trying to figure out what's going on, the world leaders' response to it, and why they are responding as they are.

While doing so, I have kept up to date with those things the Libyan people themselves have said and why. They want a no-fly zone. They are there and they are putting their lives on the line. I presume they know better than either of us what they want from world leaders.

[Ozymanithrax]

16. Clear, concise, well argued...

I agree with you.

K&R

[Cerridwen]

18. Thanks. I don't agree with me.

I'm struggling with what the Libyan people want versus my own pro-peace nature while trying to be "practical" about the whole horrid reality.

My stomach wants to pack up and run away from the rest of me. I kinda want to go with it.

But, thank you for saying so. :)

[Ozymanithrax]

21. It was easy to support Egypt and Tunisia because, in those nations,

the governments refrained from massive retaliation and murder.

I think non-violent movements are best, as was taught by Gandhi, King, Egypt, and elsewhere.

But what happens when the government that people are trying to change choses violence, choses murder, in order to maintain power? The people of Libya attempted non-violent change. Qaddafi chose violent retaliation, violent suppression. Sometimes, people are not given a choice to be non-violent. This time the violence was taken to them.

Do we support these people or do we abandon them and hope that in generation or two they can change their government?

If Qaddafi is allowed to commit acts of genocide without repercussion, what will that say to the other governments that are now facing populations who are demanding greater freedom?

We should never choose violence. If forced upon us, we should support those who ask our help against violence.

[Cerridwen]

17. An update from AlJazeera

#4:15am

The EU welcomed the resolution on Libya, with the Jerzy Buzek, the Polish head of the European Parliament, saying:

There is no time to waste (to enforce it).

#3:31am

Leaders of the United States, Britain and France have agreed that Libya must immediately comply with all terms of the UN resolution and to cease violence against the civilian population. They agreed to coordinate closely on the next steps and to work with Arab and other international partners to enforce the resolution.

#3:26am

Khalid Kaim, the Libyan deputy foreign minister, said the government would "react positively to the UN resolution, and we will prove this willingness while guaranteeing protection to civilians". (emphasis added) link (FYI: I presume this link will change as blog updates.

[riverwalker]

19. well said

Gaddafi will not stop short of genocide. We have this massive bloated military to "preserve freedom" and the Libyans are begging us for support their revolt against an oppressive lunatic. I've read enough to know also this is not a civil war. The "media center" in Benghazi is room full of idealistic young people in T-shirts, baseball caps with laptops. It is a genuine revolt against a murderous lunatic. If we can supply some support and bomb an airfield or two, lets do it.

[Duende azul]

22. Fear! Terror alert.

Don't forget: Gadaffi was the first one to go after Bin Laden.

On Lockerbie the final word isn´t spoken.
Recently they tried to blame it on Iran.
And you can fully expect, after having disposed of Gadaffi that meme will resurface.
That`s the recyclable multipurpose event to name the bad guy de jour.

Qatar will intervene? There goes the objectivity of the Al Jazeera reporting on Libya. You could bet on that, when Hillary Clinton sang their praise.

Oh shit. This is definitely not what they want to make us think.

The Libyan opposition never appeared to me as legitimate as the Egyptian one. But that's just my gut feeling.
There are to much geopolitical interests of the acting parties at play.

[RZM]

23. What accounts for your 'gut feeling?'

Maybe they should have called it off . . . 'Sorry guys, but some people might not think we are legitimate enough. There are just too many geopolitical interests at play. That and all of the acid we are doing.'