webmaster
© Copyright DEHAI-Eritrea OnLine, 1993-2011
All rights reserved
From: wolda002@umn.edu
Date: Mon Apr 04 2011 - 21:55:24 EDT
US-Saudi Deal on Libya Exposed: Obama OK'ed Bahrain Invasion in Exchange for
'Yes' Vote on "No-Fly Zone"
http://www.alternet.org/story/150470/us-saudi_deal_on_libya_exposed%3A_obama_ok%27ed_bahrain_invasion_in_exchange_for_%27yes%27_vote_on_%22no-fly_zone%22?akid=6787.146865.t93bud&rd=1&t=2
By Pepe Escobar, Asia Times
Posted on April 1, 2011, Printed on April 4, 2011
http://www.alternet.org/story/150470/
You invade Bahrain. We take out Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. This, in short, is
the essence of a deal struck between the Barack Obama administration and the
House of Saud. Two diplomatic sources at the United Nations independently
confirmed that Washington, via Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, gave the
go-ahead for Saudi Arabia to invade Bahrain and crush the pro-democracy
movement in their neighbor in exchange for a "yes" vote by the Arab League
for a no-fly zone over Libya - the main rationale that led to United Nations
Security Council resolution 1973.
The revelation came from two different diplomats, a European and a member of
the BRIC group, and was made separately to a US scholar and Asia Times
Online. According to diplomatic protocol, their names cannot be disclosed.
One of the diplomats said, "This is the reason why we could not support
resolution 1973. We were arguing that Libya, Bahrain and Yemen were similar
cases, and calling for a fact-finding mission. We maintain our official
position that the resolution is not clear, and may be interpreted in a
belligerent manner."
As Asia Times Online has reported, a full Arab League endorsement of a
no-fly zone is a myth. Of the 22 full members, only 11 were present at the
voting. Six of them were Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members, the
US-supported club of Gulf kingdoms/sheikhdoms, of which Saudi Arabia is the
top dog. Syria and Algeria were against it. Saudi Arabia only had to
"seduce" three other members to get the vote.
Translation: only nine out of 22 members of the Arab League voted for the
no-fly zone. The vote was essentially a House of Saud-led operation, with
Arab League secretary general Amr Moussa keen to polish his CV with
Washington with an eye to become the next Egyptian President.
Thus, in the beginning, there was the great 2011 Arab revolt. Then,
inexorably, came the US-Saudi counter-revolution.
*Profiteers rejoice *
Humanitarian imperialists will spin en masse this is a "conspiracy", as they
have been spinning the bombing of Libya prevented a hypothetical massacre in
Benghazi. They will be defending the House of Saud - saying it acted to
squash Iranian subversion in the Gulf; obviously R2P - "responsibility to
protect" does not apply to people in Bahrain. They will be heavily promoting
post-Gaddafi Libya as a new - oily - human rights Mecca, complete with US
intelligence assets, black ops, special forces and dodgy contractors.
Whatever they say won't alter the facts on the ground - the graphic results
of the US-Saudi dirty dancing. Asia Times Online has already reported on who
profits from the foreign intervention in Libya (see There's no business like
war business <http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MC30Ak01.html>, March
30). Players include the Pentagon (via Africom), the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO), Saudi Arabia, the Arab League's Moussa, and Qatar. Add
to the list the al-Khalifa dynasty in Bahrain, assorted weapons contractors,
and the usual neo-liberal suspects eager to privatize everything in sight in
the new Libya - even the water. And we're not even talking about the Western
vultures hovering over the Libyan oil and gas industry.
Exposed, above all, is the astonishing hypocrisy of the Obama
administration, selling a crass geopolitical coup involving northern Africa
and the Persian Gulf as a humanitarian operation. As for the fact of another
US war on a Muslim nation, that's just a "kinetic military action".
There's been wide speculation in both the US and across the Middle East that
considering the military stalemate - and short of the "coalition of the
willing" bombing the Gaddafi family to oblivion - Washington, London and
Paris might settle for the control of eastern Libya; a northern African
version of an oil-rich Gulf Emirate. Gaddafi would be left with a starving
North Korea-style Tripolitania.
But considering the latest high-value defections from the regime, plus the
desired endgame ("Gaddafi must go", in President Obama's own words),
Washington, London, Paris and Riyadh won't settle for nothing but the whole
kebab. Including a strategic base for both Africom and NATO.
*Round up the unusual suspects*
One of the side effects of the dirty US-Saudi deal is that the White House
is doing all it can to make sure the Bahrain drama is buried by US media.
BBC America news anchor Katty Kay at least had the decency to stress, "they
would like that one [Bahrain] to go away because there's no real upside for
them in supporting the rebellion by the Shi'ites."
For his part the emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al Thani, showed up
on al-Jazeera and said that action was needed because the Libyan people were
attacked by Gaddafi. The otherwise excellent al-Jazeera journalists could
have politely asked the emir whether he would send his Mirages to protect
the people of Palestine from Israel, or his neighbors in Bahrain from Saudi
Arabia.
The al-Khalifa dynasty in Bahrain is essentially a bunch of Sunni settlers
who took over 230 years ago. For a great deal of the 20th century they were
obliging slaves of the British empire. Modern Bahrain does not live under
the specter of a push from Iran; that's an al-Khalifa (and House of Saud)
myth.
Bahrainis, historically, have always rejected being part of a sort of
Shi'ite nation led by Iran. The protests come a long way, and are part of a
true national movement - way beyond sectarianism. No wonder the slogan in
the iconic Pearl roundabout - smashed by the fearful al-Khalifa police state
- was "neither Sunni nor Shi'ite; Bahraini".
What the protesters wanted was essentially a constitutional monarchy; a
legitimate parliament; free and fair elections; and no more corruption. What
they got instead was "bullet-friendly Bahrain" replacing "business-friendly
Bahrain", and an invasion sponsored by the House of Saud.
And the repression goes on - invisible to US corporate media. Tweeters
scream that everybody and his neighbor are being arrested. According to
Nabeel Rajab, president of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, over 400
people are either missing or in custody, some of them "arrested at
checkpoints controlled by thugs brought in from other Arab and Asian
countries - they wear black masks in the streets." Even blogger Mahmood Al
Yousif was arrested at 3 am, leading to fears that the same will happen to
any Bahraini who has blogged, tweeted, or posted Facebook messages in favor
of reform.
*Globocop is on a roll *
Odyssey Dawn is now over. Enter Unified Protector - led by Canadian Charles
Bouchard. Translation: the Pentagon (as in Africom) transfers the "kinetic
military action " to itself (as in NATO, which is nothing but the Pentagon
ruling over Europe). Africom and NATO are now one.
The NATO show will include air and cruise missile strikes; a naval blockade
of Libyia; and shady, unspecified ground operations to help the "rebels".
Hardcore helicopter gunship raids a la AfPak - with attached "collateral
damage" - should be expected.
A curious development is already visible. NATO is deliberately allowing
Gaddafi forces to advance along the Mediterranean coast and repel the
"rebels". There have been no surgical air strikes for quite a while.
The objective is possibly to extract political and economic concessions from
the defector and Libyan exile-infested Interim National Council (INC) - a
dodgy cast of characters including former Justice minister Mustafa Abdel
Jalil, US-educated former secretary of planning Mahmoud Jibril, and former
Virginia resident, new "military commander" and CIA asset Khalifa Hifter.
The laudable, indigenous February 17 Youth movement - which was in the
forefront of the Benghazi uprising - has been completely sidelined.
This is NATO's first African war, as Afghanistan is NATO's first
Central/South Asian war. Now firmly configured as the UN's weaponized arm,
Globocop NATO is on a roll implementing its "strategic concept" approved at
the Lisbon summit last November (see Welcome to
NATOstan<http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LK20Ak02.html>,
Asia Times Online, November 20, 2010).
Gaddafi's Libya must be taken out so the Mediterranean - the*mare nostrum* of
ancient Rome - becomes a NATO lake. Libya is the only nation in northern
Africa not subordinated to Africom or Centcom or any one of the myriad NATO
"partnerships". The other non-NATO-related African nations are Eritrea,
Sawahiri Arab Democratic Republic, Sudan and Zimbabwe.
Moreover, two members of NATO's "Istanbul Cooperation Initiative" - Qatar
and the United Arab Emirates - are now fighting alongside Africom/NATO for
the fist time. Translation: NATO and Persian Gulf partners are fighting a
war in Africa. Europe? That's too provincial. Globocop is the way to go.
According to the Obama administration's own official doublespeak, dictators
who are eligible for "US outreach" - such as in Bahrain and Yemen - may
relax, and get away with virtually anything. As for those eligible for
"regime alteration", from Africa to the Middle East and Asia, watch out.
Globocop NATO is coming to get you. With or without dirty deals.
* Pepe Escobar is the author of* Globalistan: How the Globalized World is
Dissolving into Liquid
War<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0978813820/simpleproduction/ref=nosim>
(Nimble
Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the
surge<http://www.amazon.com/Red-Zone-Blues-snapshot-Baghdad/dp/0978813898>.
His new book, just out, is Obama does
Globalistan<http://www.amazon.com/Obama-Does-Globalistan-Pepe-Escobar/dp/1934840831/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233698286&sr=8-1>
(Nimble
Books, 2009).
----[This List to be used for Eritrea Related News Only]----