Gaddafi now controls 20% more territory than he did before we started this odious bombing campaign. He has been able to hold more and better attended rallies of more genuine supporters in recent days than he ever could before we started bombing. Exactly as I predicted, the effect of NATO bombing has been to rally nationalist support around Gaddafi, whom we have stupidly put in a much stronger position than he was when he only faced genuine internal rebellion.
The French and British have now backed down, and both have agreed that Gaddafi will be able to remain in Libya as part of any transition deal. That amounts to an acceptance that he will be the power behind the throne. The problem is, of course, that it is Gaddafi who is growing stronger and NATO which is growing weaker, with political will to keep killing crumbling as surely as NATO economies and currencies.
Hague and Cameron have moved, from abject weakness, to a position of allowing Gaddafi to remain in Libya, which they adamantly rejected three months ago. Then, there was some hope Gaddafi might have accepted it. Now, he has no need to accept a face-saving deal for NATO. He can just sit and watch them dwindle.
It is, moreover, a facesaving proposal that mocks the International Criminal Court, revealing it starkly as a tool to be brought out and used against the enemies of the western alliance, but simply shoved back in its box if they change their minds.
Obama made a shrewd political move to distract from the abject failure of the Afghan occupation to achieve any of its stated goals, by assassinating Osama Bin Laden. Expect now a similar ploy in Libya, with attempts to assassinate Gadaffi by bombing – and possibly by other means – being radically stepped up in an attempt to rescue some “victory” from this humiliation.
This was so easy to predict.
http://www.bristolnuj.org.uk/2011/03/30/where-is-the-negotiation-on-libya-asks-bristol-based-iraq-expert/
A really disturbing report from Susan Lindauer regarding atrocities by the “rebels”.
.
Note that an International team of lawyers and human rights activists are gathering evidence to prosecute NATO.
.
There are links to extremely distressing videos and there is quite rightly an editorial warning.
.
http://www.federaljack.com/?p=30292
‘Obama made a shrewd political move to distract from the abject failure of the Afghan occupation to achieve any of its stated goals, by assassinating Osama Bin Laden.’
a) did OBL actually exist?
b) if so wasn’t he already dead way back?
Mary,
.
OBL was some cat – I read somewhere that he had been reported dead on 9 separate occasions.
.
I believe he died in December 2001.
I read a report that on 22/7, the day of the Norwegian terror attack, NATO bombed pipelines of the Great Man-made River Project and then, the following day, destroyed the factory in al-Brega that makes the pipes, thus hampering Libya’s ability to repair the damage.
.
The only source I have found for this is Pravda and a couple of youTube videos so it may well not be true; don’t know if anyone can cast further light on this.
“Gaddafi now controls 20% more territory than he did before we started this odious bombing campaign…”
Wow! You wouldn’t guess that if your only sources of news were the BBC and The Times…
When the story appeared that rebel leaders were prepared to let Qadafi stay in Libya, was I the only one who thought “All the easier to do away with him…”?
You should stop referring to the ‘Western Alliance’ as if it meant something other than political bowing to Caesar.
And NATO should receive its correct title as North American Terrorist Organisation.
@ Scouse Billy. Prosecute NATO where exactly? At the International Criminal Court?
I wonder what provision NATO/UK have put in place for counting casualties, considering that there appears to be a legal obligation for them to do so – see Making Casualty Recording a Legal Requirement and particularly, Discussion Paper: The Legal Obligation to Record Civilian Casualties of Armed Conflict.
@Scousebilly, when you say,
“I believe he died in December 2001.”
are you talking about the real OBL or the a href=”http://nodeinthenoosphere.blogspot.com/2011/05/semiotic-hyperreality.html”>hyperreal OBL?
The distinction leads to a greater clarity of analysis.
@Scousebilly, when you say,
“I believe he died in December 2001.”
are you talking about the real OBL or the hyperreal OBL?
The distinction leads to a greater clarity of analysis.
I don’t agree with any of this. As I remember your original objection, and the objection of most contributors to this blog, to the limited intervention by NATO proposed and sanctioned by the UN was that it would turn into another Iraq. Now you are crowing that it is in fact a humiliation for the allied forces, because it is in fact nothing like another Iraq.
Yes it is a mess, and the intervention may not have helped in any dramatic way, but no-one ever claimed that it would. The object was to protect huge numbers of Libyan people from indiscriminate bombing by their own government, and such bombing has been limited by taking a stand.
Of course we don’t know all that is going on, and no doubt some of it is bad, but on the evidence we have I don’t see that very many of the dire consequences you and your bloggers were queuing up to point out have so far come to pass.
Conjunction –
You are confusing the no-fly zone to protect civilians from bombing – which did indeed have UN backing – with the lengthy NATO bombing campaign aimed at regime change. The two are completely different things, and the second is illegal.
warning do not watch that beheading video
The independent article is a bit disingenuous, it says “The regime controls around 20 per cent more territory than it did in the immediate aftermath of the uprising on 17 February.”
I think I remember the uprising gaining control in most of Libya apart from the area around Surt, Tripoli and some of the area near the boarder with Chad and Niger. Then he began to retake towns and cities and crush the rebellion; then the rebels pushed back in the east, then they were pushed back to the gates of Benghazi (loosing the towns near the eastern boarder), then the bombing started and Gaddafi’s forces retreated and the rebels advanced in the west, then they retreated and then the rebels seemed to advance slowly on all fronts. It seems obvious (whatever you think of the bombing) that the rebels have advanced since it began. what is should have said is the rebels don’t control as much territory as they did before Gaddafi’s counter attack.
Baldie is stamping his foot and saying to the Libyan Embassy personnel that they cannot play in his yard any more. Totally pathetic. Equally pathetic is NuLabour’s Twigglet who concurs. Incidentally I heard this morning that Coulson employed Hague to write a column for £200,000 pa.
.
UK expels Gaddafi diplomats and recognises Libya rebels
Foreign Secretary William Hague: ”We’re inviting the national transitional council to appoint a new Libyan diplomatic envoy”
.
William Hague has said the UK will recognise the Libyan rebel council as the “sole governmental authority”, as Gaddafi-regime diplomats are expelled.
.
The Libyan charge d’affaires was called to the Foreign Office earlier to be told he and other diplomats must leave.
.
Instead the UK will ask the National Transitional Council to appoint a new diplomatic envoy.
.
It follows similar moves by the US and France. The UK previously said it recognised “countries not governments”.
.
A Foreign Office spokesman said that had not changed and said it was a political, not legal, recognition.
.
The green flag of the Gaddafi regime was still flying outside the embassy in Knightsbridge on Wednesday afternoon and attempts to reach staff for comment were not successful. Protesters carrying the red, green and black flag of the Libyan rebels gathered outside.
.
Libyan rebels and pro-Gaddafi forces are still locked in battle, five months after an uprising began against Muammar Gaddafi’s 42-year rule, as Nato continues to enforce a UN-backed no-fly zone over the country.
.
‘Sole authority’
.
At a press conference, Mr Hague said the NTC had shown its commitment to a “more open and democratic Libya… in stark contrast to Gaddafi whose brutality against the Libyan people has stripped him of all legitimacy”.
.
He said a recent meeting of the Libya contact group in Istanbul had decided to treat the NTC as the legitimate government authority in Libya – and he was outlining the UK’s response to that.
.
The UK would now deal with the NTC “on the same basis as other governments around the world” – and as a result the Libyan charge d’affaires had been summoned to the Foreign Office to be told all Gaddafi regime diplomats must now leave. It is thought that eight Libyan diplomats remain at the embassy.
.
“We will sustain our actions for as long as necessary”
William Hague
UK Foreign Secretary
.
‘Anger’ at bomber’s TV appearance
.
“We no longer recognise them as the representatives of the Libyan government and we are inviting the National Transitional Council to appoint a new Libyan diplomatic envoy to take over the Libyan embassy in London,” he said.
.
The change meant the UK could give “greater practical assistance than we’ve been able to give so far”, he added.
.
The Foreign Office said the charge d’affaires, Khaled Benshaban, would be given three days to leave – while others would be decided on a “case-by-case basis”.
.
Mr Hague said he was working with the NTC and Libyan banks and would do “all we can” to ensure Libyan students in the UK continue to receive the funds currently paid for by the Libyan embassy.
.
Assets unfrozen
.
The foreign secretary also outlined measures to unfreeze assets worth £91m belonging to an oil company now controlled by the NTC to help meet “basic needs” in Libya.
.
More work will be done over the next few weeks to unfreeze more Libyan assets in the UK, including stocks of currency and other assets of the Libyan central bank.
.
Protesters gathered outside the embassy to demand the green flag of Gaddafi be replaced
.
Mr Hague said: “I’m making this announcement today to reflect the facts on the ground and to increase support for those fighting and working for a better future in Libya.
.
“We will sustain our actions for as long as necessary and our recent decision to deploy an additional four Tornado aircraft is a concrete illustration of this.
.
“What I have announced today will allow us to give further assistance to the people of Libya and underline the message to the Gaddafi regime that their legitimacy has come to an end.”
.
For Labour, shadow foreign office minister Stephen Twigg told the BBC: “We agree that the National Transitional Council is best able to represent the people of Libya, so it makes sense to recognise them, I hope other countries will also recognise them, and it’s time for Gaddafi’s diplomats to leave London.”
.
The UK embassy in Tripoli suspended operations in February but it has a diplomatic mission in rebel-held Benghazi. Libyan ambassador to the UK Omar Jelban was expelled in May.
.
This week Mr Hague suggested Col Gaddafi may not have to go into exile should he leave power – saying it was a “question for the Libyans”.
.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14306544
This whole thing is just weird, why would they try to kill the people at the top of the Libyan regime at the same time as (apparently) trying to negotiate with them at the same time as expelling their diplomats.
William Hague reminds me of one of the psychic test subjects from akira
but but hagues said that the rebels were moving forward gaining ground .. and gaddafis days are numbered ..
.
i saw his lips move.
THE RAPE OF LIBYA
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sfY-OR_olQ
.
Yes Mr Nuri Zughaid from Jawaby Oil LONDON – I know the truth from your daughter. You are NOT interested in the Libyan people – you my friend are the link to Blair and agent Cameron who guards your claim to Libyan oil with his security men (retired special forces commanded by a serving high ranking army officer).
.
Serve the Libyan people or my report goes to UNSC.
Bah, apparently Hague is now saying releasing al-Megrahi was a ‘great mistake’. Why does he play along with the BS? I mean, surely, he must know about all the holes in the case? Mustn’t he?
I used to think William Hague was funny, but now I just see him as a dangerous idiot. Saif Ghadaffi offered free Libyan elections a couple of months ago and his calls were blanked by the UK, France and all the other banksters heavies.
Hague is determined to release Libyan money to these unelected rebels and terrorists.
Guess who will have to pay it all back after the Libyan people chase the rebels out of town? Yes, it will be us again.
The entire concept of Responsibility to protect was bollocks and a contradiction of the UN charter.
*
But more than a crime, the assault on Libya was a mistake.
*
As with Iraq, taking hold of Libya’s oil resources may take a $trillion or two and cost Libya hundreds of thousand of civilian lives.
*
This atrocity, just as Asia resume its place as the economic center of the world.
Having lived in Libya for over 30 years I cannot tell you how disappointing and incorrect your view on the situation in Libya is.
The oppression of Gaddafi is palpable except in free Libya where people smile more.
I escaped Tripoli after months of NATO bombing, the joy we all felt when bombs were being dropped can not be put into words. Fear of showing support for the bombing was however very real with thugs released from prison given arms and money to control anything that could be counted as free expression.
I pray every day that my family in Tripoli will soon be free to breathe.
Guerre criminelle
http://allainjules.com/
Pingback: Losing in Libya « The Truth is Where?
“Fear of showing support for the bombing was however very real ”
*
LOL. That is normal in a country being bombed.
*
“I cannot tell you how disappointing and incorrect your view on the situation in Libya is”
*
I’m not sure whose view you are referring to, but it might be mine as it immediately precedes your comment. If so, perhaps you would expand, and explain on what basis the UN Charter mandates intervention in a sovereign country to prevent the government from putting down an armed insurrection.
*
Also, it would be interesting to know why you lived in Libya for 30 years under the tyranny of Gaddafi, but have now left at a time when, at home, you could be enjoying the delights of NATO bombing?
Hajr, too, find it strange that the consensus of opinion on this blog is so against the rebels and so pro Gadaffi.
Most of the rebel fighters are young men who are fighting to be able to speak freely, have in government people who represent their views; they want employment, a share of the country’s wealth, avenge relatives’ deaths. They don’t want to continually live in the fear of arrest and torture and death.
Surely the stance of Craig and the commentators given their views on other conflicts should be with the rebels. If people in Uzbekistan started revolting against their leaders and some Western powers came in to help them, would Craig and the commentators support the Uzbek government against the rebels?
The majority of Libyans support the ousting of Gadaffi and are grateful for the help of the West. However, please don’t think for one minute that they are unaware of the motives of the US, France and the UK. Once Gadaffi is gone, it will be much easier to remove a government that doesn’t give them what they want. Gadaffi during his forty years in power has built up an almost impenetrable security system.
I would also like to ask, what does everybody think would be the difference in composition and policy of the rebels (assuming that they win) with and without the NATO bombing. Considering that there are no effective unions or popular organizing of any variety save Islamic groups (which I think were crushed) like there were in Egypt or Tunisia. I’ve not been able to find anyone talking about this.
“they want employment, a share of the country’s wealth”
*
Ruth, are you saying that the people of Benghazi have not shared significantly in the benefits of the economic transformation of Libya from the poorest country in Africa to the richest, that has occurred under Gaddafi?
*
If so, can you provide some information to support this?
*
And if NATO is to go to war to ensure economic equality, why is NATO not already bombing this country?
NATO war crime: Libya water supply
..
http://english.pravda.ru/news/world/23-07-2011/118577-nato_war_crimes-0/
Report on NATO Bombing of the Great Man-Made River Pipe-Making Plant